Datasets:

madanarnav

/

financial_alpaca_llama

like 0

Why doesn’t every company and individual use tax-havens to pay less taxes?

There are tax free bonds in the United States. They are for things like public housing and other urban projects. They are tax free for everyone but only rich people buy them. Why? The issue is that the tax free nature of the bond is included in its yield. So rather than yielding say a 5% return, they figure that the owner is getting 20% off due to not paying taxes. As a result, they only give a 4% return but are as risky as a 5% return investment. Net result, only rich people invest in tax free bonds. "Rich" is defined here to mean people paying a 20% tax on long term investment returns. Or take the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which has been in the news recently. Again, it is technically open to everyone. But there is also a standard deduction that is open to everyone. For the typical family, state and local taxes might be 5% of income. So for a family making $100k a year, that's $5k. The same family can take a $13k or so standard deduction instead of itemizing. So why would they take the smaller deduction? As a practical matter, two groups take the SALT deduction. People rich enough to pay more than $13k in state and local taxes and people who also take the mortgage interest deduction. So it helps a lot of people who are rich quite a bit. And it helps a few middle class people some. But if you are lower middle class with a $30k mortgage on a tiny house and paying 4% interest, then that's only $1200 a year. Add in property taxes of $3000 and SALT of $2.8k and that's only $7k. Even if the person gives $3k to charity, the $13k deduction is a lot better and requires less paperwork. Contrast that with someone who has $500k mortgage at 3.6% interest. That's $18k in interest alone. Add in a SALT of $7k and property taxes of $50k, and there's $75k of itemized deductions, much better than $13k. Now a $7k donation to charity is entirely deductible. And even after the mortgage interest deduction goes away, the other $64k remains.

<s>[INST] Why doesn’t every company and individual use tax-havens to pay less taxes? [/INST] There are tax free bonds in the United States. They are for things like public housing and other urban projects. They are tax free for everyone but only rich people buy them. Why? The issue is that the tax free nature of the bond is included in its yield. So rather than yielding say a 5% return, they figure that the owner is getting 20% off due to not paying taxes. As a result, they only give a 4% return but are as risky as a 5% return investment. Net result, only rich people invest in tax free bonds. "Rich" is defined here to mean people paying a 20% tax on long term investment returns. Or take the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which has been in the news recently. Again, it is technically open to everyone. But there is also a standard deduction that is open to everyone. For the typical family, state and local taxes might be 5% of income. So for a family making $100k a year, that's $5k. The same family can take a $13k or so standard deduction instead of itemizing. So why would they take the smaller deduction? As a practical matter, two groups take the SALT deduction. People rich enough to pay more than $13k in state and local taxes and people who also take the mortgage interest deduction. So it helps a lot of people who are rich quite a bit. And it helps a few middle class people some. But if you are lower middle class with a $30k mortgage on a tiny house and paying 4% interest, then that's only $1200 a year. Add in property taxes of $3000 and SALT of $2.8k and that's only $7k. Even if the person gives $3k to charity, the $13k deduction is a lot better and requires less paperwork. Contrast that with someone who has $500k mortgage at 3.6% interest. That's $18k in interest alone. Add in a SALT of $7k and property taxes of $50k, and there's $75k of itemized deductions, much better than $13k. Now a $7k donation to charity is entirely deductible. And even after the mortgage interest deduction goes away, the other $64k remains. </s>

Are stock prices likely drop off a little bit on a given friday afternoon?

It is called the Monday Effect or the Weekend Effect. There are a number of similar theories including the October Effect and January Effect. It's all pretty much bunk. If there were any truth to traders would be all over it and the resulting market forces would wipe it out. Personally, I think all technical analysis has very little value other than to fuel conversations at dinner parties about investments. You might also consider reading about Market efficiency to see further discussion about why technical approaches like this might, but probably don't work.

<s>[INST] Are stock prices likely drop off a little bit on a given friday afternoon? [/INST] It is called the Monday Effect or the Weekend Effect. There are a number of similar theories including the October Effect and January Effect. It's all pretty much bunk. If there were any truth to traders would be all over it and the resulting market forces would wipe it out. Personally, I think all technical analysis has very little value other than to fuel conversations at dinner parties about investments. You might also consider reading about Market efficiency to see further discussion about why technical approaches like this might, but probably don't work. </s>

Asset allocation when retirement is already secure

You will hear a lot about diversifying your portfolio, which typically means having a good mix of investment types, areas of investments, etc. I'd like to suggest that you should also diversify your sources. Sad to say but the defined benefit pension is not a rock solid, sure fire source of security in your retirement planning. Companies go bankrupt, government agencies are reorganized, and those hitherto-untouchable assets are destroyed overnight. So, treat your new investment strategy as if you were starting over, and invest accordingly, for example, aggressively for a few years, then progressively safer as you get older. There are other strategies too, depending on factors like your taste for risk: you might prefer to be conservative until you reach some safety threshold to reach "certain safety" and then start making riskier investments. You may also consider different investment vehicles and techniques such as index funds, dollar cost averaging, and so on.

<s>[INST] Asset allocation when retirement is already secure [/INST] You will hear a lot about diversifying your portfolio, which typically means having a good mix of investment types, areas of investments, etc. I'd like to suggest that you should also diversify your sources. Sad to say but the defined benefit pension is not a rock solid, sure fire source of security in your retirement planning. Companies go bankrupt, government agencies are reorganized, and those hitherto-untouchable assets are destroyed overnight. So, treat your new investment strategy as if you were starting over, and invest accordingly, for example, aggressively for a few years, then progressively safer as you get older. There are other strategies too, depending on factors like your taste for risk: you might prefer to be conservative until you reach some safety threshold to reach "certain safety" and then start making riskier investments. You may also consider different investment vehicles and techniques such as index funds, dollar cost averaging, and so on. </s>

How can this be enough to fund a scholarship in perpetuity?

The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year.

<s>[INST] How can this be enough to fund a scholarship in perpetuity? [/INST] The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year. </s>

Why do stock prices of retailers not surge during the holidays?

Your explanation is nearly perfect and not "hand wavy" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to "beat the market", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......)

<s>[INST] Why do stock prices of retailers not surge during the holidays? [/INST] Your explanation is nearly perfect and not "hand wavy" at all. Stock prices reflect the collective wisdom of all participating investors. Investors value stocks based on how much value they expect the stock to produce now and in the future. So, the stability of the stock prices is a reflection of the accuracy of the investors predictions. Investor naivity can be seen as a sequence of increasingly sophisticated stock pricing strategies: If investors were able to predict the future perfectly, then all stock prices would rise at the same constant rate. In theory, if a particular investor is able to "beat the market", it is because they are better at predicting the future profits of companies (or they are lucky, or they are better at predicting the irrational behavior of other investors......) </s>

What constitutes illegal insider trading?

You have to read some appeals court cases see scholar.google.com , as well as SEC enforcement actions on sec.gov to get an understanding of how the SEC operates. http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml There are court created guidelines for how insider trading would be proven There is no clear line, but it is the "emergency asset injunctions" (freezing your assets if you nailed a suspiciously lucrative trade) you really want to avoid, and this is often times enforced/reported by the brokers themselves since the SEC does not have the resources to monitor every account's trading activities. There are some thin lines, such as having your lawyer file a lawsuit, and as soon as it is filed it is technically public so you short the recipient's stock. Or having someone in a court room updating you on case developments as soon as possible so you can make trades (although this may just be actually public, depending on the court). But the rules create the opportunities Also consider that the United States is the most strict country in this regard, there are tons of capital markets and the ideals or views of "illegal insider trading" compared to "having reached a level of society where you are privileged to obtain this information" vary across the board contains charts of countries where an existing insider trading prohibition is actually enforced: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=articles https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Teaching/BA453_2005/BD_The_world.pdf Finally, consider some markets that don't include equities, as trading on an information advantage is only applicable to things the SEC regulates, and there are plenty of things that agency doesn't regulate. So trying to reverse engineer the SEC may not be the most optimal use of energy

<s>[INST] What constitutes illegal insider trading? [/INST] You have to read some appeals court cases see scholar.google.com , as well as SEC enforcement actions on sec.gov to get an understanding of how the SEC operates. http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml There are court created guidelines for how insider trading would be proven There is no clear line, but it is the "emergency asset injunctions" (freezing your assets if you nailed a suspiciously lucrative trade) you really want to avoid, and this is often times enforced/reported by the brokers themselves since the SEC does not have the resources to monitor every account's trading activities. There are some thin lines, such as having your lawyer file a lawsuit, and as soon as it is filed it is technically public so you short the recipient's stock. Or having someone in a court room updating you on case developments as soon as possible so you can make trades (although this may just be actually public, depending on the court). But the rules create the opportunities Also consider that the United States is the most strict country in this regard, there are tons of capital markets and the ideals or views of "illegal insider trading" compared to "having reached a level of society where you are privileged to obtain this information" vary across the board contains charts of countries where an existing insider trading prohibition is actually enforced: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=articles https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Teaching/BA453_2005/BD_The_world.pdf Finally, consider some markets that don't include equities, as trading on an information advantage is only applicable to things the SEC regulates, and there are plenty of things that agency doesn't regulate. So trying to reverse engineer the SEC may not be the most optimal use of energy </s>

Yahoo Finance - Data inconsistencies between historic and current data

You might have better luck using Quandl as a source. They have free databases, you just need to register to access them. They also have good api's, easier to use than the yahoo api's Their WIKI database of stock prices is curated and things like this are fixed (www.quandl.com/WIKI ), but I'm not sure that covers the London stock exchange. They do, however, have other databases that cover the London stock exchange.

<s>[INST] Yahoo Finance - Data inconsistencies between historic and current data [/INST] You might have better luck using Quandl as a source. They have free databases, you just need to register to access them. They also have good api's, easier to use than the yahoo api's Their WIKI database of stock prices is curated and things like this are fixed (www.quandl.com/WIKI ), but I'm not sure that covers the London stock exchange. They do, however, have other databases that cover the London stock exchange. </s>

How can I borrow in order to improve a home I just bought?

It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic.

<s>[INST] How can I borrow in order to improve a home I just bought? [/INST] It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic. </s>

What options are available for a home loan with poor credit but a good rental history?

Why not just do an FHA loan? The minimum credit score is 580, and you can sometimes even go lower than that. Another alternative is to consider a rent-to-own agreement with his landlord, since it sounds like if he doesn't buy he'd continue renting there anyway.

<s>[INST] What options are available for a home loan with poor credit but a good rental history? [/INST] Why not just do an FHA loan? The minimum credit score is 580, and you can sometimes even go lower than that. Another alternative is to consider a rent-to-own agreement with his landlord, since it sounds like if he doesn't buy he'd continue renting there anyway. </s>

Deducting last years (undocumented) side business loss

You should speak to a good tax adviser. The less documentation you have the more problems IRS are going to cause you. Generally you can deduct business losses (in the year they occurred, which is 2011), but you have to show that that was a valid business, not just a way to reduce your tax bill with personal expenses. Thus lack of documentation reduces your ability to prove that you're entitled to the deduction. The burden of proof is generally on you. You can not deduct it from 2012 taxes, but you can still amend 2011. Keep in mind though that amended returns have higher chance of audit, and a significant business loss on a business that only existed that year is a major red flag which will raise the probability of an audit to very high percentage. Theoretically, if the business was real and just failed - you can definitely deduct this. But practically, lack of documentation may cause too big a problem, and a tax adviser might suggest you giving it up if he doesn't think you have a real chance to convince the IRS. Definitely don't do that without a professional advice. It is worth fighting for, its quite a loss, but don't do it on your own as you will definitely lose.

<s>[INST] Deducting last years (undocumented) side business loss [/INST] You should speak to a good tax adviser. The less documentation you have the more problems IRS are going to cause you. Generally you can deduct business losses (in the year they occurred, which is 2011), but you have to show that that was a valid business, not just a way to reduce your tax bill with personal expenses. Thus lack of documentation reduces your ability to prove that you're entitled to the deduction. The burden of proof is generally on you. You can not deduct it from 2012 taxes, but you can still amend 2011. Keep in mind though that amended returns have higher chance of audit, and a significant business loss on a business that only existed that year is a major red flag which will raise the probability of an audit to very high percentage. Theoretically, if the business was real and just failed - you can definitely deduct this. But practically, lack of documentation may cause too big a problem, and a tax adviser might suggest you giving it up if he doesn't think you have a real chance to convince the IRS. Definitely don't do that without a professional advice. It is worth fighting for, its quite a loss, but don't do it on your own as you will definitely lose. </s>

Should I use an NRE or NRO account to transfer money from India to the US? Any reports needed?

NRE is better. It's a tax free account, exempt from income tax. NRE account is freely repatriable (Principal and interest earned) while the NRO account has restricted repatriability

<s>[INST] Should I use an NRE or NRO account to transfer money from India to the US? Any reports needed? [/INST] NRE is better. It's a tax free account, exempt from income tax. NRE account is freely repatriable (Principal and interest earned) while the NRO account has restricted repatriability </s>

Can I trust the Motley Fool?

Hmm.. hey bro, not personal, but is what comes to mind: I guess my answer will be highly down voted... =P

<s>[INST] Can I trust the Motley Fool? [/INST] Hmm.. hey bro, not personal, but is what comes to mind: I guess my answer will be highly down voted... =P </s>

How to deal with the credit card debt from family member that has passed away?

First, when a debt collector says, "It's to your advantage to give me money now", I'd take that with a grain of salt. My ex-wife declared bankruptcy and when debt collectors couldn't find her, they somehow tracked me down and told me that I should tell her that it would be to her advantage to pay off this debt before the bankruptcy went through. That was total nonsense of course. The whole point of bankruptcy is to not have to pay the debt. Why would you pay it just before it was wiped off the books? (Now that I think of it, I'm surprised that they didn't tell me that I should pay her debts.) As others have noted, this would be controlled by state law. But in general, when someone dies any debts are payed from the assets of the estate, and then whatever is left goes to the heirs. If nothing is left or the debts exceed the assets, then the heirs get nothing, but they don't have to pay somebody else's debts. I don't see how you could "put the house under your name". If he left the house to you in his will, then after any debts are settled in accordance with state law, the house would transfer to you. But you can't just decide to put the house in your name outside of the legal inheritance process. If you could, then people could undermine a will at any time by just deciding to take an asset left to someone else and "put it in their name". Or as in this case, people could undermine the rights of creditors by transferring all assets to themselves before debts were paid. Even if there's some provision in your state for changing the name on a deed prior to probate to facilitate getting mortgages and taxes paid or whatever, I would be quite surprised if this allowed you to shelter assets from legitimate creditors. It would be a gaping loophole in inheritance law. Frankly, if your father's debts are more than the value of his assets, including the value of the house, I suspect you will not be able to keep the house. It will be sold to pay off the creditors. I would certainly talk to a lawyer about this as there might be some provision in the law that you can take advantage of. I'll gladly yield on this point to anyone with specific knowledge of New Jersey inheritance law.

<s>[INST] How to deal with the credit card debt from family member that has passed away? [/INST] First, when a debt collector says, "It's to your advantage to give me money now", I'd take that with a grain of salt. My ex-wife declared bankruptcy and when debt collectors couldn't find her, they somehow tracked me down and told me that I should tell her that it would be to her advantage to pay off this debt before the bankruptcy went through. That was total nonsense of course. The whole point of bankruptcy is to not have to pay the debt. Why would you pay it just before it was wiped off the books? (Now that I think of it, I'm surprised that they didn't tell me that I should pay her debts.) As others have noted, this would be controlled by state law. But in general, when someone dies any debts are payed from the assets of the estate, and then whatever is left goes to the heirs. If nothing is left or the debts exceed the assets, then the heirs get nothing, but they don't have to pay somebody else's debts. I don't see how you could "put the house under your name". If he left the house to you in his will, then after any debts are settled in accordance with state law, the house would transfer to you. But you can't just decide to put the house in your name outside of the legal inheritance process. If you could, then people could undermine a will at any time by just deciding to take an asset left to someone else and "put it in their name". Or as in this case, people could undermine the rights of creditors by transferring all assets to themselves before debts were paid. Even if there's some provision in your state for changing the name on a deed prior to probate to facilitate getting mortgages and taxes paid or whatever, I would be quite surprised if this allowed you to shelter assets from legitimate creditors. It would be a gaping loophole in inheritance law. Frankly, if your father's debts are more than the value of his assets, including the value of the house, I suspect you will not be able to keep the house. It will be sold to pay off the creditors. I would certainly talk to a lawyer about this as there might be some provision in the law that you can take advantage of. I'll gladly yield on this point to anyone with specific knowledge of New Jersey inheritance law. </s>

Does investing in a company support it?

As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.

<s>[INST] Does investing in a company support it? [/INST] As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing. </s>

What happens with the “long” buyer of a stock when somebody else's short fails (that is, unlimited loss bankrupts short seller)

Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned.

<s>[INST] What happens with the “long” buyer of a stock when somebody else's short fails (that is, unlimited loss bankrupts short seller) [/INST] Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned. </s>

I'm an American in my mid 20's. Is there something I should be doing to secure myself financially?

First of all, make sure you have an emergency fund. Ideally this should be at least 6 months of living expenses in an easily accessible place. Do you have any credit card debt, school debt, or other debt? Work towards becoming debt free, especially of higher interest debt and debt on things that are only depreciating (cars, for example). If you have extra income, consider putting it towards debt. If you currently have access to a 403b, you should begin investing immediately. If not, look into a Roth IRA. The community has provided suggestions for good places to get one. With a Roth IRA you take post-tax income money and invest it into this retirement account and when you reach retirement age you get it and all the interest as tax-free income. You can't withdraw the principal until retirement age. You should put up to the legal limit into a retirement account - if you can't do this at first work towards this goal. After an emergency fund, becoming debt free, and fully funding your retirement, save for goals such as a house or other things you are working towards. The exact order of doing these things might vary, but in general you need the emergency fund first.

<s>[INST] I'm an American in my mid 20's. Is there something I should be doing to secure myself financially? [/INST] First of all, make sure you have an emergency fund. Ideally this should be at least 6 months of living expenses in an easily accessible place. Do you have any credit card debt, school debt, or other debt? Work towards becoming debt free, especially of higher interest debt and debt on things that are only depreciating (cars, for example). If you have extra income, consider putting it towards debt. If you currently have access to a 403b, you should begin investing immediately. If not, look into a Roth IRA. The community has provided suggestions for good places to get one. With a Roth IRA you take post-tax income money and invest it into this retirement account and when you reach retirement age you get it and all the interest as tax-free income. You can't withdraw the principal until retirement age. You should put up to the legal limit into a retirement account - if you can't do this at first work towards this goal. After an emergency fund, becoming debt free, and fully funding your retirement, save for goals such as a house or other things you are working towards. The exact order of doing these things might vary, but in general you need the emergency fund first. </s>

How do i get into investing stocks [duplicate]

Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, "Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called "The RRSP Secret" by Greg Habstritt. "Unshakeable" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.

<s>[INST] How do i get into investing stocks [duplicate] [/INST] Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, "Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called "The RRSP Secret" by Greg Habstritt. "Unshakeable" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that. </s>

What exactly is the profit and loss of a portfolio?

When we 'delta-hedge', we make the value of a portfolio 0. No - you make the risk relative to some underlying 0. The portfolio does have a value, but if whatever underlying you're hedging against changes slightly the value of your portfolio should not change. But, what is the derivative of a portfolio? It's the instantaneous rate of change of the portfolio) relative to some underlying phenomenon. With a portfolio of many stocks, there's not one single factor that drives the value of your portfolio. You have sensitivity to each underlying stock (price and volatility), interest rates, the market as a whole, etc. For simplicity, we might imagine a portfolio that has holdings in .... a call .... a stock .... and a bank account (to borrow and lend money). You will have a delta relative to the stock and a delta relative to the underlying instrument on the option, etc. Those can only be aggregated for each factor (e.g. if the call is an option on the same stock) Theta is the only one you can calculate for the portfolio as a whole - it will be the aggregate theta of all of your positions (since change in time is constant across all investments). All of the others are not aggregatable since they are measuring sensitivities to different phenomena.

<s>[INST] What exactly is the profit and loss of a portfolio? [/INST] When we 'delta-hedge', we make the value of a portfolio 0. No - you make the risk relative to some underlying 0. The portfolio does have a value, but if whatever underlying you're hedging against changes slightly the value of your portfolio should not change. But, what is the derivative of a portfolio? It's the instantaneous rate of change of the portfolio) relative to some underlying phenomenon. With a portfolio of many stocks, there's not one single factor that drives the value of your portfolio. You have sensitivity to each underlying stock (price and volatility), interest rates, the market as a whole, etc. For simplicity, we might imagine a portfolio that has holdings in .... a call .... a stock .... and a bank account (to borrow and lend money). You will have a delta relative to the stock and a delta relative to the underlying instrument on the option, etc. Those can only be aggregated for each factor (e.g. if the call is an option on the same stock) Theta is the only one you can calculate for the portfolio as a whole - it will be the aggregate theta of all of your positions (since change in time is constant across all investments). All of the others are not aggregatable since they are measuring sensitivities to different phenomena. </s>

What should a 21 year old do with £60,000 ($91,356 USD) inheritance?

The above answers are great. I would only add to the "rainy day" part, that even though the cash provides a good cushion, "a stormy day" could mean even losing those emergency savings to the unignorable randomness that governs the world economy. Though unlikely, what happened to the russian ruble and the latest decision of the swiss cental bank are just two recent reminders that uncertainty must be treated as a constant. I would therefore advise you to invest some of the money in land capable of agriculture. How expensive is land over there in the UK?

<s>[INST] What should a 21 year old do with £60,000 ($91,356 USD) inheritance? [/INST] The above answers are great. I would only add to the "rainy day" part, that even though the cash provides a good cushion, "a stormy day" could mean even losing those emergency savings to the unignorable randomness that governs the world economy. Though unlikely, what happened to the russian ruble and the latest decision of the swiss cental bank are just two recent reminders that uncertainty must be treated as a constant. I would therefore advise you to invest some of the money in land capable of agriculture. How expensive is land over there in the UK? </s>

Covered call when stock position is at a loss

If your shares get called on stock at a price below what you paid for the stock, your gain or loss depends on what premium you got for the options you sold. "can I deliver shares at that assigned strike using margin or additional capital if I have it? Can the broker just take care of it and let me collect the time premium? " You don't need margin or any cash because you already hold the shares. A covered call means your cash requirements are 'covered'. So they'll just buy your shares at the strike price of $50. And you still get to keep the premium (which you should have gotten when you sold the covered call). You only need cash or margin when you've sold an uncovered call or put.

<s>[INST] Covered call when stock position is at a loss [/INST] If your shares get called on stock at a price below what you paid for the stock, your gain or loss depends on what premium you got for the options you sold. "can I deliver shares at that assigned strike using margin or additional capital if I have it? Can the broker just take care of it and let me collect the time premium? " You don't need margin or any cash because you already hold the shares. A covered call means your cash requirements are 'covered'. So they'll just buy your shares at the strike price of $50. And you still get to keep the premium (which you should have gotten when you sold the covered call). You only need cash or margin when you've sold an uncovered call or put. </s>

Is there a term that better describes a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) when it is negative?

Same question had popped up in our office,and we got an answer from one of the senior colleague. He said that we can call it CARC (Compounded Annual Rate of Change).

<s>[INST] Is there a term that better describes a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) when it is negative? [/INST] Same question had popped up in our office,and we got an answer from one of the senior colleague. He said that we can call it CARC (Compounded Annual Rate of Change). </s>

why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate?

You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed.

<s>[INST] why is the money withdrawn from traditional IRA taxed at the ordinary income tax rate? [/INST] You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed. </s>

If I own x% of company A, and A buys company B, do I own x% of B?

No, thanks to the principle of corporate personhood. The legal entity (company C) is the owner and parent of the private company (sub S). You and C are separate legal entities, as are C and S. This principle helps to legally insulate the parties for purposes such as liability, torts, taxes, and so forth. If company C is sued, you may be financially at stake (i.e. your investment in C is devalued or made worthless) but you are not personally being sued. However, the litigant may attach you as an additional litigant if the facts of the suit merit it. But without legal separateness of corporations, then potentially all owners and maybe a number of the employees would be sued any time somebody sued the business - which is messy for companies and messy for litigants. It's also far cleaner for lenders to lend to unified business entities rather than a variety of thousands of ever-shifting shareholders. Note that this is a separate analysis that assumes the companies are not treated as partnerships or disregarded entities (tax nothings) for tax purposes, in which case an owner may for some purposes be imputed to own the assets of C. I've also ignored the consolidated tax return, which would allow C and S to file a type of corporate joint return that for some purposes treats them similarly to common entity. For the simplest variation of your question, the answer is no. You do not own the assets of a corporation by virtue of owning a few of its shares. Edit: In light of your edit to include FB and Whatsapp, and the wrinkle about corporate books. If sub S is 100% owned by company C, then you do not have any inspection rights to S because you are not a shareholder. You also do not have virtual corporation inspection rights through company C. However, if a person has inspection rights to company C, and sub S appears on the books and financial records of C, then your C rights will do the job of seeing S information. However, Facebook is a public company, so they will make regular public filings and disclosures that should at least partly cover Whatsapp. So I hedge and clear my throat by averring that my securities training is limited, but I believe that the SEC filings of a public company will as a practical matter (maybe a matter of law?) moot the inspection rights. At the very least, I suspect you'd need a proper purpose (under DGCL, for example), to demand the inspection, and they will have already made extensive disclosures that I believe will be presumptively sufficient. I defer to more experienced securities experts on that question, but I don't believe inspection rights are designed for public companies.

<s>[INST] If I own x% of company A, and A buys company B, do I own x% of B? [/INST] No, thanks to the principle of corporate personhood. The legal entity (company C) is the owner and parent of the private company (sub S). You and C are separate legal entities, as are C and S. This principle helps to legally insulate the parties for purposes such as liability, torts, taxes, and so forth. If company C is sued, you may be financially at stake (i.e. your investment in C is devalued or made worthless) but you are not personally being sued. However, the litigant may attach you as an additional litigant if the facts of the suit merit it. But without legal separateness of corporations, then potentially all owners and maybe a number of the employees would be sued any time somebody sued the business - which is messy for companies and messy for litigants. It's also far cleaner for lenders to lend to unified business entities rather than a variety of thousands of ever-shifting shareholders. Note that this is a separate analysis that assumes the companies are not treated as partnerships or disregarded entities (tax nothings) for tax purposes, in which case an owner may for some purposes be imputed to own the assets of C. I've also ignored the consolidated tax return, which would allow C and S to file a type of corporate joint return that for some purposes treats them similarly to common entity. For the simplest variation of your question, the answer is no. You do not own the assets of a corporation by virtue of owning a few of its shares. Edit: In light of your edit to include FB and Whatsapp, and the wrinkle about corporate books. If sub S is 100% owned by company C, then you do not have any inspection rights to S because you are not a shareholder. You also do not have virtual corporation inspection rights through company C. However, if a person has inspection rights to company C, and sub S appears on the books and financial records of C, then your C rights will do the job of seeing S information. However, Facebook is a public company, so they will make regular public filings and disclosures that should at least partly cover Whatsapp. So I hedge and clear my throat by averring that my securities training is limited, but I believe that the SEC filings of a public company will as a practical matter (maybe a matter of law?) moot the inspection rights. At the very least, I suspect you'd need a proper purpose (under DGCL, for example), to demand the inspection, and they will have already made extensive disclosures that I believe will be presumptively sufficient. I defer to more experienced securities experts on that question, but I don't believe inspection rights are designed for public companies. </s>

Are there any countries where citizens are free to use any currency?

Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your "rarer" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.

<s>[INST] Are there any countries where citizens are free to use any currency? [/INST] Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your "rarer" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible. </s>

Are Certificates of Deposit worth it compared to investing in the stock market?

Of course CDs are worth it compared to the stock market. In fact, most institutional investors are envious of the CDs you have access to as an individual investor that are unavailable to them. You just need to be competent enough to shop around for the best rates and understand your time horizon. There are several concepts to understand here: Banks give out CDs with competitive rates projecting future interest rates. So while the Federal funds rate is currently extremely low, banks know that in order to get any takers on their CDs they have to factor in the public expectation that rates will rise, so if you lock in a longer term CD you get a competitive rate. Institutional investors do not have access to FDIC insured CDs and the closest analog they participate in are the auctions and secondary markets of US Treasuries. These two types of assets have equivalent default (non-)risk if held to maturity: backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Here are the current rates (as of question's date) taken from Vanguard that I can get on CDs versus Treasuries (as an individual investor). Notice that CDs outperform Treasuries across any maturity timescale! For fixed-income and bond allocations, institutional investors are lining up for buying treasuries. And yet here you are saying "CDs are not worth it." Might want to rethink that. Now going into the stock market as an investor with expectations of those high returns you quote, means you're willing to stay there for the long-term (at least a decade) and stay the course during volatility to actually have any hope of coming up with the average rate of return. Even then, there's the potential downside of risk that you still lose principal after that duration. So given that assumption, it's only fair to compare against >= 10 year CDs which are currently rated at 2 percent APY. In addition, CDs can be laddered -- allowing you to lock-in newer (and potentially higher) rates as they become available. You essentially stagger your buyin into these investments, and either reinvest upon the stilted maturity dates or use as income. Also keep in mind that while personal emergencies requiring quick access to cash can happen at any time, the most common scenario is during the sudden change from a bull market into a recession -- the time when stocks plummet. If you need money right away, selling your stocks at these times would lock in severe losses, whereas with CDs you still won't lose principal with an early exit and the only penalty is usually a sacrifice of a few months of potential interest. It's easy to think of the high yields during a protracted bull market (such as now), but personal finance has a huge behavioral component to it that is largely ignored until it's too late. One risk that isn't taken care of by either CDs or Treasuries is inflation risk. All the rates here and in the original question are nominal rates, and the real return will depend on inflation (or deflation). There are other options here besides CDs, Treasuries, and the stock market to outpace inflation if you'd like to hedge that risk with inflation protection: Series I Savings Bonds and TIPS.

<s>[INST] Are Certificates of Deposit worth it compared to investing in the stock market? [/INST] Of course CDs are worth it compared to the stock market. In fact, most institutional investors are envious of the CDs you have access to as an individual investor that are unavailable to them. You just need to be competent enough to shop around for the best rates and understand your time horizon. There are several concepts to understand here: Banks give out CDs with competitive rates projecting future interest rates. So while the Federal funds rate is currently extremely low, banks know that in order to get any takers on their CDs they have to factor in the public expectation that rates will rise, so if you lock in a longer term CD you get a competitive rate. Institutional investors do not have access to FDIC insured CDs and the closest analog they participate in are the auctions and secondary markets of US Treasuries. These two types of assets have equivalent default (non-)risk if held to maturity: backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Here are the current rates (as of question's date) taken from Vanguard that I can get on CDs versus Treasuries (as an individual investor). Notice that CDs outperform Treasuries across any maturity timescale! For fixed-income and bond allocations, institutional investors are lining up for buying treasuries. And yet here you are saying "CDs are not worth it." Might want to rethink that. Now going into the stock market as an investor with expectations of those high returns you quote, means you're willing to stay there for the long-term (at least a decade) and stay the course during volatility to actually have any hope of coming up with the average rate of return. Even then, there's the potential downside of risk that you still lose principal after that duration. So given that assumption, it's only fair to compare against >= 10 year CDs which are currently rated at 2 percent APY. In addition, CDs can be laddered -- allowing you to lock-in newer (and potentially higher) rates as they become available. You essentially stagger your buyin into these investments, and either reinvest upon the stilted maturity dates or use as income. Also keep in mind that while personal emergencies requiring quick access to cash can happen at any time, the most common scenario is during the sudden change from a bull market into a recession -- the time when stocks plummet. If you need money right away, selling your stocks at these times would lock in severe losses, whereas with CDs you still won't lose principal with an early exit and the only penalty is usually a sacrifice of a few months of potential interest. It's easy to think of the high yields during a protracted bull market (such as now), but personal finance has a huge behavioral component to it that is largely ignored until it's too late. One risk that isn't taken care of by either CDs or Treasuries is inflation risk. All the rates here and in the original question are nominal rates, and the real return will depend on inflation (or deflation). There are other options here besides CDs, Treasuries, and the stock market to outpace inflation if you'd like to hedge that risk with inflation protection: Series I Savings Bonds and TIPS. </s>

0% APR first 12 months on new credit card. Can I exceed that 30% rule of thumb and not hurt my credit score?

Your utilization ratio history is irrelevant to its impact on your credit score. If you run up 80% of your utilization In January, then pay it back to 10% in March, your score in March will reflect the new reduced ratio with no memory of the 80% utilization last month. With that said, don't go around overspending just because you have 0% apr for a little bit. Spend what you would spend with cash.

<s>[INST] 0% APR first 12 months on new credit card. Can I exceed that 30% rule of thumb and not hurt my credit score? [/INST] Your utilization ratio history is irrelevant to its impact on your credit score. If you run up 80% of your utilization In January, then pay it back to 10% in March, your score in March will reflect the new reduced ratio with no memory of the 80% utilization last month. With that said, don't go around overspending just because you have 0% apr for a little bit. Spend what you would spend with cash. </s>

Is it financially advantageous and safe to rent out my personal car?

I'm going to address a couple of extra issues over and above mhoran_psprep's great answer. Insurance A lot of the jobs you describe require that you have additional insurance over and above what you currently have, normally insurance that lets you drive for payment. You should insist that anyone you rent to has this insurance. If not, you may find yourself liable and uninsured. Also you should be aware of this story: "Quebec Uber drivers have cars seized, fined up to $7,500".

<s>[INST] Is it financially advantageous and safe to rent out my personal car? [/INST] I'm going to address a couple of extra issues over and above mhoran_psprep's great answer. Insurance A lot of the jobs you describe require that you have additional insurance over and above what you currently have, normally insurance that lets you drive for payment. You should insist that anyone you rent to has this insurance. If not, you may find yourself liable and uninsured. Also you should be aware of this story: "Quebec Uber drivers have cars seized, fined up to $7,500". </s>

Why an inner suburbs small apartment considered a risky investment

The banks see small apartments as a higher risk because usually very small apartments are harder to sell, especially during a falling market when there is an oversupply of these apartments. The price of small apartments will also fall a lot quicker in a falling market. Regarding yield vs capital growth - the emphasis here is manly on high yielding properties in small country towns with small populations. How many properties can you buy with cash? Properties with good growth will enable you to build equity quicker and enable you to build a larger portfolio. In my opinion you need a combination of good yield and reasonable growth, because without yield you cannot replace your earned income with passive income, but without growth you can't expand your portfolio. So a combination of good yield with reasonable growth will give the best outcome.

<s>[INST] Why an inner suburbs small apartment considered a risky investment [/INST] The banks see small apartments as a higher risk because usually very small apartments are harder to sell, especially during a falling market when there is an oversupply of these apartments. The price of small apartments will also fall a lot quicker in a falling market. Regarding yield vs capital growth - the emphasis here is manly on high yielding properties in small country towns with small populations. How many properties can you buy with cash? Properties with good growth will enable you to build equity quicker and enable you to build a larger portfolio. In my opinion you need a combination of good yield and reasonable growth, because without yield you cannot replace your earned income with passive income, but without growth you can't expand your portfolio. So a combination of good yield with reasonable growth will give the best outcome. </s>

Any specific examples of company valuations according to Value Investing philosophy?

Buffet is in a different league from other value investors. He looks for stable companies with no debt and good management. Then he looks to deeply understand the industries of candidate companies, and looks for companies that are not in commodity businesses or sell commodities that can be bought for 25% of the valuation that he believes reflects the true value of the company. Deeply understanding the market is really the key. Consider the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which Buffet purchased last year. Railroads benefit from higher oil prices, as they can transport cargo much cheaper than trucks. They also tend to have natural monopolies in the regions they operate in. Buffet bought the railroad just as production of oil and natural gas in North Dakota started picking up. Since pipeline capacity between North Dakota and refineries in Texas/Oklahoma is very limited, the railroad is making alot of money transporting crude.

<s>[INST] Any specific examples of company valuations according to Value Investing philosophy? [/INST] Buffet is in a different league from other value investors. He looks for stable companies with no debt and good management. Then he looks to deeply understand the industries of candidate companies, and looks for companies that are not in commodity businesses or sell commodities that can be bought for 25% of the valuation that he believes reflects the true value of the company. Deeply understanding the market is really the key. Consider the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which Buffet purchased last year. Railroads benefit from higher oil prices, as they can transport cargo much cheaper than trucks. They also tend to have natural monopolies in the regions they operate in. Buffet bought the railroad just as production of oil and natural gas in North Dakota started picking up. Since pipeline capacity between North Dakota and refineries in Texas/Oklahoma is very limited, the railroad is making alot of money transporting crude. </s>

Filing taxes on stocks

You need to submit an updated return. The problem is that once three years have passed you can't update the return to get any kind of refund, but if they are going after you for the sale price of the stocks, not knowing the cost, your goal is to show them there was no gain, and in fact you'd have had the loss if you were aware of the account. This is less than ten years back, so the broker should be able to give you the statements pretty easily.

<s>[INST] Filing taxes on stocks [/INST] You need to submit an updated return. The problem is that once three years have passed you can't update the return to get any kind of refund, but if they are going after you for the sale price of the stocks, not knowing the cost, your goal is to show them there was no gain, and in fact you'd have had the loss if you were aware of the account. This is less than ten years back, so the broker should be able to give you the statements pretty easily. </s>

Why will the bank only loan us 80% of the value of our fully paid for home?

I am going to add just one more item to what are some very well thought out answers. The element of "Cash Out" If you are taking out 80% of the value of the home that you already own free and clear the bank considers this a "Cash Out" transaction - meaning you would effectively walk away from closing with a check for 80% of your home's value. So in a hypothetical situation you have a $200,000 home value - you would be handed a check for $160,000 with which you could do anything that you wanted. Granted, you are likely going to do something responsible with it and purchase another home - BUT (big BUT) the bank can't control what you do with it and that is the part they don't like - and therefore they treat these types of transactions with a higher degree of scrutiny. It is all about control - if the property you are downsizing to fits their rules for lending they may actually loan you a higher loan to value on that purchase than they would on your "cash out" refinance transaction on your current home. With the purchase loan the money you get goes immediately to the purchase of a new home. In the "cash out" transaction it goes to a check with which you could do anything you want . . . and then not pay the loan back . . . I know no one here would do that - but there are some folks that would . . . and this is one of the reasons "Cash Out" loans are not nearly as easy as they once were to get. http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/mortgagefraud.html

<s>[INST] Why will the bank only loan us 80% of the value of our fully paid for home? [/INST] I am going to add just one more item to what are some very well thought out answers. The element of "Cash Out" If you are taking out 80% of the value of the home that you already own free and clear the bank considers this a "Cash Out" transaction - meaning you would effectively walk away from closing with a check for 80% of your home's value. So in a hypothetical situation you have a $200,000 home value - you would be handed a check for $160,000 with which you could do anything that you wanted. Granted, you are likely going to do something responsible with it and purchase another home - BUT (big BUT) the bank can't control what you do with it and that is the part they don't like - and therefore they treat these types of transactions with a higher degree of scrutiny. It is all about control - if the property you are downsizing to fits their rules for lending they may actually loan you a higher loan to value on that purchase than they would on your "cash out" refinance transaction on your current home. With the purchase loan the money you get goes immediately to the purchase of a new home. In the "cash out" transaction it goes to a check with which you could do anything you want . . . and then not pay the loan back . . . I know no one here would do that - but there are some folks that would . . . and this is one of the reasons "Cash Out" loans are not nearly as easy as they once were to get. http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/mortgagefraud.html </s>

Where do online stock brokers get their real-time data from?

As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.

<s>[INST] Where do online stock brokers get their real-time data from? [/INST] As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale. </s>

Extra cash - go towards mortgage, or stock?

It's six of one a half dozen of another. Investing the cash is a little more risky. You know exactly what you'll get by paying down your mortgage. If you have a solid emergency fund it's probably most advisable to pay down your mortgage. If your mortgage is 3% and your investment makes 3.5% you're talking about a taxable gain of 0.5% on the additional cash. Is that worth it to you? Sure, the S&P has been on a tear but remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.

<s>[INST] Extra cash - go towards mortgage, or stock? [/INST] It's six of one a half dozen of another. Investing the cash is a little more risky. You know exactly what you'll get by paying down your mortgage. If you have a solid emergency fund it's probably most advisable to pay down your mortgage. If your mortgage is 3% and your investment makes 3.5% you're talking about a taxable gain of 0.5% on the additional cash. Is that worth it to you? Sure, the S&P has been on a tear but remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance. </s>

Taking out a loan to pay down a mortgage

You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.

<s>[INST] Taking out a loan to pay down a mortgage [/INST] You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%. </s>

Can paying down a mortgage be considered an “investment”?

Your mortgage represents a negative cash flow of $X for N months. The typical mortgage prepayment doesn't reduce your next payment, but does reduce the length of the mortgage. If you look at the amortization table of a 30 year loan, you might see a payment of $1000 but only $50 going to principal. So if on day one you send an extra $51 or so to the bank, you find that in 30 years you just saved that $1000 payment. In effect, it was a long term bond or CD, yielding the post tax rate of the mortgage. Say your loan were 7%. At 7%, money doubles every 10 years or so. 30 years is 3 doubles or 8X. If I were to offer you $1000 and ask for $7500 in 30 years, you might accept it, with an agreement to buy me out if you refinanced. For me, that would be an investment. Just like buying a bond. In fact, there is a real return, as you see the cash flow at the end. The payments 'not made' are your payback. Those who insist it's not an investment are correct in the strict sense of the word's definition, but pedantic for the fact in practice, the prepayment is a choice to be considered alongside other investment choices. When I have a mortgage, I am the mortgagor, the bank, the mortgagee. Same as a company issuing a bond, the Bank holds my bond and I'm making payments to them. They hold my bond as an investment. There is no question of that. In fact, they package these and sell them as CMOs, groups of mortgages. A pre-payment is me buying back the last coupon on my mortgage. I fail to see the distinction between me 'buying back' $10K in future coupons on my own loan or me investing $10K in someone else's loans. The real question for me is whether this makes sense when rates are so low. At 4%, I'd say it's a matter of prioritizing any high rate debt and any other investments that might yield more. But even so, it's an investment yielding 4%. Over the years, I've developed the priorities of where to put new money - The priorities are debatable. I have my opinion, and my reasons to back them up. In general, it's a balance between risk and return. In my opinion, there's something wrong with ignoring a dollar for dollar match on the 401(k) in most circumstances. Others seem to prefer being 100% debt free before saving at all. There's a balance that might be different for each individual. As I started, the mortgage is a fixed return, with no chance to just get it back if needed. If your cash savings is pretty high, and the choice is a .001% CD or prepay a 4% mortgage, I'd use some funds to pay it down. But not to the point you have no liquid reserves.

<s>[INST] Can paying down a mortgage be considered an “investment”? [/INST] Your mortgage represents a negative cash flow of $X for N months. The typical mortgage prepayment doesn't reduce your next payment, but does reduce the length of the mortgage. If you look at the amortization table of a 30 year loan, you might see a payment of $1000 but only $50 going to principal. So if on day one you send an extra $51 or so to the bank, you find that in 30 years you just saved that $1000 payment. In effect, it was a long term bond or CD, yielding the post tax rate of the mortgage. Say your loan were 7%. At 7%, money doubles every 10 years or so. 30 years is 3 doubles or 8X. If I were to offer you $1000 and ask for $7500 in 30 years, you might accept it, with an agreement to buy me out if you refinanced. For me, that would be an investment. Just like buying a bond. In fact, there is a real return, as you see the cash flow at the end. The payments 'not made' are your payback. Those who insist it's not an investment are correct in the strict sense of the word's definition, but pedantic for the fact in practice, the prepayment is a choice to be considered alongside other investment choices. When I have a mortgage, I am the mortgagor, the bank, the mortgagee. Same as a company issuing a bond, the Bank holds my bond and I'm making payments to them. They hold my bond as an investment. There is no question of that. In fact, they package these and sell them as CMOs, groups of mortgages. A pre-payment is me buying back the last coupon on my mortgage. I fail to see the distinction between me 'buying back' $10K in future coupons on my own loan or me investing $10K in someone else's loans. The real question for me is whether this makes sense when rates are so low. At 4%, I'd say it's a matter of prioritizing any high rate debt and any other investments that might yield more. But even so, it's an investment yielding 4%. Over the years, I've developed the priorities of where to put new money - The priorities are debatable. I have my opinion, and my reasons to back them up. In general, it's a balance between risk and return. In my opinion, there's something wrong with ignoring a dollar for dollar match on the 401(k) in most circumstances. Others seem to prefer being 100% debt free before saving at all. There's a balance that might be different for each individual. As I started, the mortgage is a fixed return, with no chance to just get it back if needed. If your cash savings is pretty high, and the choice is a .001% CD or prepay a 4% mortgage, I'd use some funds to pay it down. But not to the point you have no liquid reserves. </s>

Making $100,000 USD per month, no idea what to do with it

Your #1 problem is the Government both in it's form as a taxation outfit and as a 'law and order' outfit. You'd be very surprised at how fast a bank seizes your bank account in response to a court order. Purchase 100 Mexican 50 Peso Gold (1.2 oz/ea). These coins are cheap (lowest cost to get into) and will not be reportable on sale to taxing authorities. That money is out of the banking system and legal system(s). Do not store them in a bank! You need to find a tax strategist, probably a former IRS agent / CPA type. With the rest remaining money... There's an old saying, Don't fight the Fed. As well as "The trend is your friend". So, the Fed wants all savers fully invested right now (near 0 interest rates). When investing, I find that if you do exactly opposite what you think is the smart thing, that's the best thing. Therefore, it follows: 1) Don't fight the Fed 2) Do opposite of smart 3) Do: Fight the Fed (and stay 100% out of the market and in cash) We're looking like Japan so could remain deflationary for decades to come. Cash is king...

<s>[INST] Making $100,000 USD per month, no idea what to do with it [/INST] Your #1 problem is the Government both in it's form as a taxation outfit and as a 'law and order' outfit. You'd be very surprised at how fast a bank seizes your bank account in response to a court order. Purchase 100 Mexican 50 Peso Gold (1.2 oz/ea). These coins are cheap (lowest cost to get into) and will not be reportable on sale to taxing authorities. That money is out of the banking system and legal system(s). Do not store them in a bank! You need to find a tax strategist, probably a former IRS agent / CPA type. With the rest remaining money... There's an old saying, Don't fight the Fed. As well as "The trend is your friend". So, the Fed wants all savers fully invested right now (near 0 interest rates). When investing, I find that if you do exactly opposite what you think is the smart thing, that's the best thing. Therefore, it follows: 1) Don't fight the Fed 2) Do opposite of smart 3) Do: Fight the Fed (and stay 100% out of the market and in cash) We're looking like Japan so could remain deflationary for decades to come. Cash is king... </s>

What is a normal amount of money to spend per week on food/entertainment/clothing?

I'll start with a question... Is the 63K before or after taxes? The short answer to your question on how much is reasonable is: "It depends." It depends on a lot more than where you live, it depends on what you want... do you want to pay down debt? Do you want to save? Are you trying to buy a house? Those will influence how much you "can" (should let yourselves) spend. It also depends on your actual salary... just because I spend 5% of my salary on something doesn't mean bonkers to you if you're making 63,000 and I'm only making 10,000. I also have a lot of respect for you trying to take this on. It's never easy. But I would also recommend you start by trying to see what you can do to track how much you are actually spending. That can be hard, especially if you mostly use cash. Once you're tracking what you spend, I still think you're coming at this a bit backwards though... rather than ask 'how much is reasonable' to spend on those other expenses, you basically need to rule out the bigger items first. This means things like taxes, your housing, food, transportation, and kid-related expenses. (I've got 2.5 kids of my own.) I would guess that you're listing your pre-tax salaries on here... so start first with whatever it costs you to pay taxes. I'm a US citizen living in Berlin, haven't filed UK taxes, but uktaxcalculators.co.uk says that on 63,000 a year with 3 deductions your net earnings will actually be 43,500. That's 3,625/month. Then what does it cost you each month for rent/utilities/etc. to put a house over your family's head? The rule of thumb they taught in my home-economics class was 35-40%, but that's not for Europe... you'll know what it costs. Let's say its 1,450 a month (40%) for rent and utilities and maybe insurance. That leaves 2,175. The next necessity after housing is food. My current food budget is about 5-6% of my after-tax salary. But that may not compare... the cost to feed a family of 3 is a fairly fixed number, and our salaries aren't the same. As I said, I am a US expat living in Berlin, so I looked at this cost of living calculator, and it looks like groceries are about 7-10% higher there around Cardiff than here in Germany. Still, I spend about 120 € per week on food. That has a fair margin in it for splurging on ice cream and a couple brewskies. It feeds me (I'm almost 2m and about 100 kilos) and my family of four. Let's say you spend 100£ a week on groceries. For budgeting, that's 433£ a month. (52 weeks / 12 months == 4.333 weeks/month) But let's call it 500£. That leaves 1,675. From here, you'll have to figure out the details of where your own money is going--that's why I said you should really start tracking your expenses somehow... even just for a short time. But for the purposes of completing the answers to your questions, the next step is to look at saving before you try spending anything else. A nice target is to aim for 10% of your after-tax pay going into a savings account... this is apart from any other investments. Let's say you do that, you'll be putting away 363£ per month. That leaves 1,300£. As far as other expenses... you need some money for transport. You haven't mentioned car(s) but let's say you're spending another 500£ there. That would be about enough to cover one with the petrol you need to get around town. That leaves 800£ As far as a clothing budget and entertainment, I usually match my grocery budget with what I call "mad money". That's basically money that goes towards other stuff that I would love to categorize, but that my wife gets annoyed with my efforts to drill into on a regular basis. That's another 500£, which leaves 300£. You mentioned debts... assuming that's a credit card at around 20% interest, you probably pay 133£ a month just in interest... (20% = 0.20 / 12 = 0.01667 x 8,000 = 133) plus some nominal payment towards principal. So let's call it 175£. That leaves you with 125£ of wiggle room, assuming I have even caught all of your expenses. And depending on how they're timed, you are probably feeling a serious squeeze in between paychecks. I recognize that you're asking specific questions, but I think that just based on the questions you need a bit more careful backing into the budget. And you REALLY need to track what you're spending for the time being, until you can say... right, we usually spend about this much on X... how can we cut it out? From there the basics of getting your financial house in order are splattered across the interwebs. Make a budget... stick to it... pay down debts... save. Develop goals and mini incentives/rewards as a way to make sure your change your psyche about following a budget.

<s>[INST] What is a normal amount of money to spend per week on food/entertainment/clothing? [/INST] I'll start with a question... Is the 63K before or after taxes? The short answer to your question on how much is reasonable is: "It depends." It depends on a lot more than where you live, it depends on what you want... do you want to pay down debt? Do you want to save? Are you trying to buy a house? Those will influence how much you "can" (should let yourselves) spend. It also depends on your actual salary... just because I spend 5% of my salary on something doesn't mean bonkers to you if you're making 63,000 and I'm only making 10,000. I also have a lot of respect for you trying to take this on. It's never easy. But I would also recommend you start by trying to see what you can do to track how much you are actually spending. That can be hard, especially if you mostly use cash. Once you're tracking what you spend, I still think you're coming at this a bit backwards though... rather than ask 'how much is reasonable' to spend on those other expenses, you basically need to rule out the bigger items first. This means things like taxes, your housing, food, transportation, and kid-related expenses. (I've got 2.5 kids of my own.) I would guess that you're listing your pre-tax salaries on here... so start first with whatever it costs you to pay taxes. I'm a US citizen living in Berlin, haven't filed UK taxes, but uktaxcalculators.co.uk says that on 63,000 a year with 3 deductions your net earnings will actually be 43,500. That's 3,625/month. Then what does it cost you each month for rent/utilities/etc. to put a house over your family's head? The rule of thumb they taught in my home-economics class was 35-40%, but that's not for Europe... you'll know what it costs. Let's say its 1,450 a month (40%) for rent and utilities and maybe insurance. That leaves 2,175. The next necessity after housing is food. My current food budget is about 5-6% of my after-tax salary. But that may not compare... the cost to feed a family of 3 is a fairly fixed number, and our salaries aren't the same. As I said, I am a US expat living in Berlin, so I looked at this cost of living calculator, and it looks like groceries are about 7-10% higher there around Cardiff than here in Germany. Still, I spend about 120 € per week on food. That has a fair margin in it for splurging on ice cream and a couple brewskies. It feeds me (I'm almost 2m and about 100 kilos) and my family of four. Let's say you spend 100£ a week on groceries. For budgeting, that's 433£ a month. (52 weeks / 12 months == 4.333 weeks/month) But let's call it 500£. That leaves 1,675. From here, you'll have to figure out the details of where your own money is going--that's why I said you should really start tracking your expenses somehow... even just for a short time. But for the purposes of completing the answers to your questions, the next step is to look at saving before you try spending anything else. A nice target is to aim for 10% of your after-tax pay going into a savings account... this is apart from any other investments. Let's say you do that, you'll be putting away 363£ per month. That leaves 1,300£. As far as other expenses... you need some money for transport. You haven't mentioned car(s) but let's say you're spending another 500£ there. That would be about enough to cover one with the petrol you need to get around town. That leaves 800£ As far as a clothing budget and entertainment, I usually match my grocery budget with what I call "mad money". That's basically money that goes towards other stuff that I would love to categorize, but that my wife gets annoyed with my efforts to drill into on a regular basis. That's another 500£, which leaves 300£. You mentioned debts... assuming that's a credit card at around 20% interest, you probably pay 133£ a month just in interest... (20% = 0.20 / 12 = 0.01667 x 8,000 = 133) plus some nominal payment towards principal. So let's call it 175£. That leaves you with 125£ of wiggle room, assuming I have even caught all of your expenses. And depending on how they're timed, you are probably feeling a serious squeeze in between paychecks. I recognize that you're asking specific questions, but I think that just based on the questions you need a bit more careful backing into the budget. And you REALLY need to track what you're spending for the time being, until you can say... right, we usually spend about this much on X... how can we cut it out? From there the basics of getting your financial house in order are splattered across the interwebs. Make a budget... stick to it... pay down debts... save. Develop goals and mini incentives/rewards as a way to make sure your change your psyche about following a budget. </s>

Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random?

One key piece missing from your theory is the bid/ask spread. If you buy a stock for $10, you usually can't immediately turn around and sell it for $10. You can only sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. So virtually any random investment (stocks, bonds, forex, whatever) immediately loses a small amount of value, and over the long run you will almost certainly lose money if you buy/sell at random.

<s>[INST] Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? [/INST] One key piece missing from your theory is the bid/ask spread. If you buy a stock for $10, you usually can't immediately turn around and sell it for $10. You can only sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. So virtually any random investment (stocks, bonds, forex, whatever) immediately loses a small amount of value, and over the long run you will almost certainly lose money if you buy/sell at random. </s>

Does the Black-Scholes Model apply to American Style options?

Black-Scholes is "close enough" for American options since there aren't usually reasons to exercise early, so the ability to do so doesn't matter. Which is good since it's tough to model mathematically, I've read. Early exercise would usually be caused by a weird mispricing for some technical / market-action reason where the theoretical option valuations are messed up. If you sell a call that's far in the money and don't get any time value (after the spread), for example, you probably sold the call to an arbitrageur who's just going to exercise it. But unusual stuff like this doesn't change the big picture much.

<s>[INST] Does the Black-Scholes Model apply to American Style options? [/INST] Black-Scholes is "close enough" for American options since there aren't usually reasons to exercise early, so the ability to do so doesn't matter. Which is good since it's tough to model mathematically, I've read. Early exercise would usually be caused by a weird mispricing for some technical / market-action reason where the theoretical option valuations are messed up. If you sell a call that's far in the money and don't get any time value (after the spread), for example, you probably sold the call to an arbitrageur who's just going to exercise it. But unusual stuff like this doesn't change the big picture much. </s>

When can you adjust for (and re-allow) a disallowed year-end (December) wash-sale loss?

Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss. When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss.

<s>[INST] When can you adjust for (and re-allow) a disallowed year-end (December) wash-sale loss? [/INST] Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss. When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss. </s>

US Stock Market - volume based real-time alert

TdAmeritrade offers this service for free using 3rd party company markit. From markit's site, below is their guarantee. http://www.markit.com/product/markit-on-demand Markit On Demand delivers an average of two million alerts per day through various technology platforms and via multiple channels, including email, instant messages, wireless, RSS and Facebook. Investors can subscribe to their alerts of choice, and Markit On Demand guarantees that they will receive an alert within five minutes of the event trigger for all price and volume alerts

<s>[INST] US Stock Market - volume based real-time alert [/INST] TdAmeritrade offers this service for free using 3rd party company markit. From markit's site, below is their guarantee. http://www.markit.com/product/markit-on-demand Markit On Demand delivers an average of two million alerts per day through various technology platforms and via multiple channels, including email, instant messages, wireless, RSS and Facebook. Investors can subscribe to their alerts of choice, and Markit On Demand guarantees that they will receive an alert within five minutes of the event trigger for all price and volume alerts </s>

I'm an American in my mid 20's. Is there something I should be doing to secure myself financially?

Buy this book. It is a short, simple crash course on personal finance, geared at someone in their 20s just starting out their career. You can easily finish it in a weekend. The book is a little dated at this point (pre housing bubble), but it is still valid. I personally feel it is the best intro to personal finance out there. 99% of the financial advice you read online will be a variation of what is already in this book. If you do what the book says, you should be in a solid position financially. You won't be an investment guru or anything, but you will at least have the fundamentals. There are various "protips" for personal finance that go beyond the book, but I would advise against paying too much attention to them until you have the basics down.

<s>[INST] I'm an American in my mid 20's. Is there something I should be doing to secure myself financially? [/INST] Buy this book. It is a short, simple crash course on personal finance, geared at someone in their 20s just starting out their career. You can easily finish it in a weekend. The book is a little dated at this point (pre housing bubble), but it is still valid. I personally feel it is the best intro to personal finance out there. 99% of the financial advice you read online will be a variation of what is already in this book. If you do what the book says, you should be in a solid position financially. You won't be an investment guru or anything, but you will at least have the fundamentals. There are various "protips" for personal finance that go beyond the book, but I would advise against paying too much attention to them until you have the basics down. </s>

What is the tax rate for selling stocks?

Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.

<s>[INST] What is the tax rate for selling stocks? [/INST] Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is. </s>

Should the poor consider investing as a means to becoming rich?

Definitions are in order: These definitions are important. Someone making 1,000,000 a year who spends all of it is poor. Someone who makes 500K, spends 450K a year and has three million in stocks and a paid-for million dollar home may be rich but they can't retire. They need another seven to eight million to retire. Someone with a million dollars in assets who makes 40K a year through their job, can be Financially Independent and retire. This last example is important. In The Millionaire Next Door the authors share their discovery that the average millionaire accumulated their wealth with just a working income of around 50K (the book is a bit dated so the number should be elevated if you adjust for inflation). Finance Independent is a strange thing to wrap your head around and people with high incomes often fall victim to misunderstanding it. When figuring out how much a person needs to accumulate for their "nest egg", their working income is not a direct variable. Their spending and savings rate are. A doctor making 500K, who spends 450K needs to work for 51 years if they are planning to keep spending 450K/year (adjusted for inflation) forever. Someone making 60K starting at age 21 who saves 18K (30%), could retire at 49. Someone with a truly low income and poor, say 30K and under and living in a old developed nation, investing will help them a bit. Say they save 10% of their income, by the time they reach 65 (the typical age federal retirement pensions begin), they'll have enough money to live off of in perpetuity and in comfort. They'll actually have a higher retirement income than income while they were working. But, it is challenging at those levels to save 10% of your net income. Events like your car randomly deciding to break down one day can destroy an entire year's saving.

<s>[INST] Should the poor consider investing as a means to becoming rich? [/INST] Definitions are in order: These definitions are important. Someone making 1,000,000 a year who spends all of it is poor. Someone who makes 500K, spends 450K a year and has three million in stocks and a paid-for million dollar home may be rich but they can't retire. They need another seven to eight million to retire. Someone with a million dollars in assets who makes 40K a year through their job, can be Financially Independent and retire. This last example is important. In The Millionaire Next Door the authors share their discovery that the average millionaire accumulated their wealth with just a working income of around 50K (the book is a bit dated so the number should be elevated if you adjust for inflation). Finance Independent is a strange thing to wrap your head around and people with high incomes often fall victim to misunderstanding it. When figuring out how much a person needs to accumulate for their "nest egg", their working income is not a direct variable. Their spending and savings rate are. A doctor making 500K, who spends 450K needs to work for 51 years if they are planning to keep spending 450K/year (adjusted for inflation) forever. Someone making 60K starting at age 21 who saves 18K (30%), could retire at 49. Someone with a truly low income and poor, say 30K and under and living in a old developed nation, investing will help them a bit. Say they save 10% of their income, by the time they reach 65 (the typical age federal retirement pensions begin), they'll have enough money to live off of in perpetuity and in comfort. They'll actually have a higher retirement income than income while they were working. But, it is challenging at those levels to save 10% of your net income. Events like your car randomly deciding to break down one day can destroy an entire year's saving. </s>

Saving $1,000+ per month…what should I do with it?

Excellent responses so far. Because I am a math guy, I wanted to stress the power of compounding. It's great that you are thinking about saving and your future when you are so young. Definitely be displined about your saving and investing. You would be surprised how just a small amount can compound over the years. For example, if you were to start with $5000 and contribute $100 per month. Assuming that you can get 5% ROR (hard in today's world but shouldn't be down the road), your final principal after 28 years (when you are 50 years old) will be over $90,000, which of only $38,000 is what you contributed yourself. The rest is interest. You can play with the numbers here: http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm

<s>[INST] Saving $1,000+ per month…what should I do with it? [/INST] Excellent responses so far. Because I am a math guy, I wanted to stress the power of compounding. It's great that you are thinking about saving and your future when you are so young. Definitely be displined about your saving and investing. You would be surprised how just a small amount can compound over the years. For example, if you were to start with $5000 and contribute $100 per month. Assuming that you can get 5% ROR (hard in today's world but shouldn't be down the road), your final principal after 28 years (when you are 50 years old) will be over $90,000, which of only $38,000 is what you contributed yourself. The rest is interest. You can play with the numbers here: http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm </s>

How does one typically exit (close out) a large, in-the-money long put option position?

The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say "permit you" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry!  Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.

<s>[INST] How does one typically exit (close out) a large, in-the-money long put option position? [/INST] The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say "permit you" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry!  Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month. </s>

Why does an option lose time value faster as it approaches expiry

NL7 is right and his B-S reference, a good one. Time decay happens to occur in a way that 2X the time gives an option 1.414X (the square root of 2) times the value, so half the time means about .707 of the value. This valuation model should help the trader decide on exactly how far out to go for a given trade.

<s>[INST] Why does an option lose time value faster as it approaches expiry [/INST] NL7 is right and his B-S reference, a good one. Time decay happens to occur in a way that 2X the time gives an option 1.414X (the square root of 2) times the value, so half the time means about .707 of the value. This valuation model should help the trader decide on exactly how far out to go for a given trade. </s>

historical stock data starting from 1900

Good day! Did a little research by using oldest public company (Dutch East India Company, VOC, traded in Amsterdam Stock Exchange) as search criteria and found this lovely graph from http://www.businessinsider.com/rise-and-fall-of-united-east-india-2013-11?IR=T : Why it is relevant? Below the image I found the source of data - Global Financial Data. I guess the answer to your question would be to go there: https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.html Hope this helps and good luck in your search!

<s>[INST] historical stock data starting from 1900 [/INST] Good day! Did a little research by using oldest public company (Dutch East India Company, VOC, traded in Amsterdam Stock Exchange) as search criteria and found this lovely graph from http://www.businessinsider.com/rise-and-fall-of-united-east-india-2013-11?IR=T : Why it is relevant? Below the image I found the source of data - Global Financial Data. I guess the answer to your question would be to go there: https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.html Hope this helps and good luck in your search! </s>

online personal finance software that I can host myself

I generally concur with your sentiments. mint.com has 'hack me' written all over it. I know of two major open source tools for accounting: GNUCash and LedgerSMB. I use GNUCash, which comes close to meeting your needs: The 2.4 series introduced SQL DB support; mysql, postgres and sqlite are all supported. I migrated to sqlite to see how the schema looked and ran, the conclusion was that it runs fine but writing direct sql queries is probably beyond me. I may move it to postgres in the future, just so I can write some decent reports. Note that while it uses HTML for reporting, there is no no web frontend. It still requires a client, and is not multi-user safe. But it's probably about the closest to what you what that still falls under the heading of 'personal finance'. A fork of SQL Ledger, this is postgreSQL only but does have a web frontend. All the open source finance webapps I've found are designed for small to medium busineses. I believe it should meet your needs, though I've never used it. It might be overkill and difficult to use for your limited purposes though. I know one or two people in the regional LUG use LedgerSMB, but I really don't need invoicing and paystubs.

<s>[INST] online personal finance software that I can host myself [/INST] I generally concur with your sentiments. mint.com has 'hack me' written all over it. I know of two major open source tools for accounting: GNUCash and LedgerSMB. I use GNUCash, which comes close to meeting your needs: The 2.4 series introduced SQL DB support; mysql, postgres and sqlite are all supported. I migrated to sqlite to see how the schema looked and ran, the conclusion was that it runs fine but writing direct sql queries is probably beyond me. I may move it to postgres in the future, just so I can write some decent reports. Note that while it uses HTML for reporting, there is no no web frontend. It still requires a client, and is not multi-user safe. But it's probably about the closest to what you what that still falls under the heading of 'personal finance'. A fork of SQL Ledger, this is postgreSQL only but does have a web frontend. All the open source finance webapps I've found are designed for small to medium busineses. I believe it should meet your needs, though I've never used it. It might be overkill and difficult to use for your limited purposes though. I know one or two people in the regional LUG use LedgerSMB, but I really don't need invoicing and paystubs. </s>

Should the poor consider investing as a means to becoming rich?

Given that a poor person probably has much less to invest, how can odds be in their favor? To add to Lan's great answer, if one is "poor" because they don't have enough income to build wealth (invest), then there are only two ways to change the situation - earn more or spend less. Neither are easy but both are usually possible. One can take on side jobs, look for a better-paying career, etc. Cutting spending can also be hard but is generally easier than adding income. In general, wealth building is more about what you do with your income than about how much you make. Obviously the more you make, the easier it is, but just about anyone can build wealth if they spend less than they make. Once your NET income is high enough that you have investible income, THEN you can start building wealth. Unfortunately many people have piles of debts to clean up before they are able to get to that point. What could a small guy with $100 do to make himself not poor anymore, right? Just having $100 is not going to make you "rich". There is a practical limit to how much return you can make short of high-risk activities like gambling, lottery tickets, etc. (I have actually seen this as a justification for playing the lottery, which I disagree with but is an interesting point). If you just invest $100 at 25% per year (for illustration - traditional investments typically only make 10-12% on average), in 10 years you'll have about $931. If instead you invest $100 per month at 12% annualized, in 10 years you'll have over $23,000. Not that $23,000 makes you rich - the point is that regularly saving money is much more powerful than having money to start with.

<s>[INST] Should the poor consider investing as a means to becoming rich? [/INST] Given that a poor person probably has much less to invest, how can odds be in their favor? To add to Lan's great answer, if one is "poor" because they don't have enough income to build wealth (invest), then there are only two ways to change the situation - earn more or spend less. Neither are easy but both are usually possible. One can take on side jobs, look for a better-paying career, etc. Cutting spending can also be hard but is generally easier than adding income. In general, wealth building is more about what you do with your income than about how much you make. Obviously the more you make, the easier it is, but just about anyone can build wealth if they spend less than they make. Once your NET income is high enough that you have investible income, THEN you can start building wealth. Unfortunately many people have piles of debts to clean up before they are able to get to that point. What could a small guy with $100 do to make himself not poor anymore, right? Just having $100 is not going to make you "rich". There is a practical limit to how much return you can make short of high-risk activities like gambling, lottery tickets, etc. (I have actually seen this as a justification for playing the lottery, which I disagree with but is an interesting point). If you just invest $100 at 25% per year (for illustration - traditional investments typically only make 10-12% on average), in 10 years you'll have about $931. If instead you invest $100 per month at 12% annualized, in 10 years you'll have over $23,000. Not that $23,000 makes you rich - the point is that regularly saving money is much more powerful than having money to start with. </s>

Hired with W-9, will I owe estimated tax quarterly?

You must pay your taxes at the quarterly intervals. For most people the withholding done by their employer satisfies this requirement. However, if your income does not have any withholding (or sufficient), then you must file quarterly estimated tax payments. Note that if you have a second job that does withhold, then you can adjust your W4 to request further withholding there and possibly reduce the need for estimated payments. Estimated tax payments also come into play with large investment earnings. The amount that you need to prepay the IRS is impacted by the safe harbor rule, which I am sure others will provide the exact details on.

<s>[INST] Hired with W-9, will I owe estimated tax quarterly? [/INST] You must pay your taxes at the quarterly intervals. For most people the withholding done by their employer satisfies this requirement. However, if your income does not have any withholding (or sufficient), then you must file quarterly estimated tax payments. Note that if you have a second job that does withhold, then you can adjust your W4 to request further withholding there and possibly reduce the need for estimated payments. Estimated tax payments also come into play with large investment earnings. The amount that you need to prepay the IRS is impacted by the safe harbor rule, which I am sure others will provide the exact details on. </s>

How do cashier's checks work and why are they good for scams?

There are two different issues at play here, and they are completely separate from each other: A bank or cashier's check is "safer" than a regular personal or business check because it avoids problem #1. Problem #2 exists with all kinds of paper checks. I assume the reason the warnings are about cashier's check moreso than personal checks, is simply because people already know to wait for personal checks to clear before handing over merchandise to the buyer. People are less likely to do that when receiving cashier's checks, but perhaps they still should if there is any doubt about the validity of the check. One could argue that a cashier's check actually provides a false sense of security due to this (to the receiver). On the flip side, if you are the payer, then a cashier's check could be thought of as more secure than a personal check because you don't have to reveal your bank account information to a stranger.

<s>[INST] How do cashier's checks work and why are they good for scams? [/INST] There are two different issues at play here, and they are completely separate from each other: A bank or cashier's check is "safer" than a regular personal or business check because it avoids problem #1. Problem #2 exists with all kinds of paper checks. I assume the reason the warnings are about cashier's check moreso than personal checks, is simply because people already know to wait for personal checks to clear before handing over merchandise to the buyer. People are less likely to do that when receiving cashier's checks, but perhaps they still should if there is any doubt about the validity of the check. One could argue that a cashier's check actually provides a false sense of security due to this (to the receiver). On the flip side, if you are the payer, then a cashier's check could be thought of as more secure than a personal check because you don't have to reveal your bank account information to a stranger. </s>

What's the smartest way to invest money gifted to a child?

I was in a similar situation with my now 6 year old. So I'll share what I chose. Like you, I was already funding a 529. So I opened a custodial brokerage account with Fidelity and chose to invest in very low expense index fund ETFs which are sponsored by Fidelity, so there are no commissions. The index funds have a low turnover as well, so they tend to be minimal on capital gains. As mentioned in the other answer, CDs aren't paying anything right now. And given your long time to grow, investing in the stock market is a decent bet. However, I would steer clear of any insurance products. They tend to be heavy on fees and low on returns. Insurance is for insuring something not for investing.

<s>[INST] What's the smartest way to invest money gifted to a child? [/INST] I was in a similar situation with my now 6 year old. So I'll share what I chose. Like you, I was already funding a 529. So I opened a custodial brokerage account with Fidelity and chose to invest in very low expense index fund ETFs which are sponsored by Fidelity, so there are no commissions. The index funds have a low turnover as well, so they tend to be minimal on capital gains. As mentioned in the other answer, CDs aren't paying anything right now. And given your long time to grow, investing in the stock market is a decent bet. However, I would steer clear of any insurance products. They tend to be heavy on fees and low on returns. Insurance is for insuring something not for investing. </s>

1099-B, box 5, how to figure out cost basis?

For every document that the IRS posts, there will be a correlating instructions page. This would be the instructions for the 1099-B, here. Furthermore, as you will be reporting this on Form 8949, as a substitute for previously used Schedule D; instructions are here.This article explains that the best course of action is to donate the shares as the cost basis would switch to FMV (fair market value) of the assets today. But as this did not happen, I would recommend contacting the purchasing company directly. Being a share holder, and by purchasing the shares from the source, the accounting department should still have recorded the date of purchase along with the price sold. It may take effort to prove who you are, but if their accounting records are well documented, this will not be an issue. If nothing else, claim a 100% capital gain on the entirety of the sale, and pay the tax. That is stated here.

<s>[INST] 1099-B, box 5, how to figure out cost basis? [/INST] For every document that the IRS posts, there will be a correlating instructions page. This would be the instructions for the 1099-B, here. Furthermore, as you will be reporting this on Form 8949, as a substitute for previously used Schedule D; instructions are here.This article explains that the best course of action is to donate the shares as the cost basis would switch to FMV (fair market value) of the assets today. But as this did not happen, I would recommend contacting the purchasing company directly. Being a share holder, and by purchasing the shares from the source, the accounting department should still have recorded the date of purchase along with the price sold. It may take effort to prove who you are, but if their accounting records are well documented, this will not be an issue. If nothing else, claim a 100% capital gain on the entirety of the sale, and pay the tax. That is stated here. </s>

Why are options created?

At my soon to be legendary Stock Options Cafe, I recently wrote an article "Betting On Apple at 9 to 2." It described a trade in which a 35% move in a stock over a fixed time (2 years) would result in a 354% gain in one's bet. In this case, the options serve to create remarkable leverage for speculators. In general, option help provide liquidity and extend the nature of the risk/reward curve. There are option trades that range from conservative (e.g. a 'covered call') to wildly speculative, as the one I described above.

<s>[INST] Why are options created? [/INST] At my soon to be legendary Stock Options Cafe, I recently wrote an article "Betting On Apple at 9 to 2." It described a trade in which a 35% move in a stock over a fixed time (2 years) would result in a 354% gain in one's bet. In this case, the options serve to create remarkable leverage for speculators. In general, option help provide liquidity and extend the nature of the risk/reward curve. There are option trades that range from conservative (e.g. a 'covered call') to wildly speculative, as the one I described above. </s>

Where do I invest my Roth IRA besides stock market and mutual funds?

In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.

<s>[INST] Where do I invest my Roth IRA besides stock market and mutual funds? [/INST] In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing. </s>

How many days does Bank of America need to clear a bill pay check

This is based on my experience with Chase and may not be applicable to other banks. As you mentioned Chase as one of the banks you do business with hopefully this will be helpful to you. The money does come out of your account immediately. If the check isn't cashed in a certain amount of time, the check expires and you get the money credited back to your account. Once you have made a bill payment online you can check on the status of your check by looking at your payment activity, finding the payment in question, and following the "proof of payment" link. There is will provide you with information on your payment which you can submit to your payee to prove when you submitted the payment, and which they can use to verify with the bank that you really did send the payment as you claimed. Once the check is cashed, this page will also contain images of the front and back of the cashed check, so you can prove that the recipient really did cash it. You can see from this info that the check is being funded from a different account number than your own, which is good for security purposes since (per Knuth, 2008) giving someone else your bank routing number and account number as found on your personal checks basically provides them with all they need to (fraudulently, of course) clean out your account.

<s>[INST] How many days does Bank of America need to clear a bill pay check [/INST] This is based on my experience with Chase and may not be applicable to other banks. As you mentioned Chase as one of the banks you do business with hopefully this will be helpful to you. The money does come out of your account immediately. If the check isn't cashed in a certain amount of time, the check expires and you get the money credited back to your account. Once you have made a bill payment online you can check on the status of your check by looking at your payment activity, finding the payment in question, and following the "proof of payment" link. There is will provide you with information on your payment which you can submit to your payee to prove when you submitted the payment, and which they can use to verify with the bank that you really did send the payment as you claimed. Once the check is cashed, this page will also contain images of the front and back of the cashed check, so you can prove that the recipient really did cash it. You can see from this info that the check is being funded from a different account number than your own, which is good for security purposes since (per Knuth, 2008) giving someone else your bank routing number and account number as found on your personal checks basically provides them with all they need to (fraudulently, of course) clean out your account. </s>

A debt collector will not allow me to pay a debt, what steps should I take?

What you are describing here is the opposite of a problem: You're trying to contact a debt-collector to pay them money, but THEY'RE ignoring YOU and won't return your calls! LOL! All joking aside, having 'incidental' charges show up as negative marks on your credit history is an annoyance- thankfully you're not the first to deal with such problems, and there are processes in place to remedy the situation. Contact the credit bureau(s) on which the debt is listed, and file a petition to have it removed from your history. If everything that you say here is true, then it should be relatively easy. Edit: See here for Equifax's dispute resolution process- it sounds like you've already completed the first two steps.

<s>[INST] A debt collector will not allow me to pay a debt, what steps should I take? [/INST] What you are describing here is the opposite of a problem: You're trying to contact a debt-collector to pay them money, but THEY'RE ignoring YOU and won't return your calls! LOL! All joking aside, having 'incidental' charges show up as negative marks on your credit history is an annoyance- thankfully you're not the first to deal with such problems, and there are processes in place to remedy the situation. Contact the credit bureau(s) on which the debt is listed, and file a petition to have it removed from your history. If everything that you say here is true, then it should be relatively easy. Edit: See here for Equifax's dispute resolution process- it sounds like you've already completed the first two steps. </s>

Mortgage company withholding insurance proceeds

Have you found a general contractor to rebuild your home? I would imagine that someone with a bit of expertise in the area is used to dealing with insurance companies, floating the money for a rebuild, and hitting the gates to receive payment for work accomplished. Business are used to not receiving payment when work is accomplished and it is part of the risk of being in business. They have to buy materials and pay employees with the expectation of payment in the future. Much like workers go to work on a Monday for the work that day, three Friday's later, business often have to float costs but for longer periods of time. If you are looking to be your own general contractor then you will have to float the money on your own. The money should not be used for living expenses or mortgage payments, it should be used for down payments in order to get the work of rebuilding started.

<s>[INST] Mortgage company withholding insurance proceeds [/INST] Have you found a general contractor to rebuild your home? I would imagine that someone with a bit of expertise in the area is used to dealing with insurance companies, floating the money for a rebuild, and hitting the gates to receive payment for work accomplished. Business are used to not receiving payment when work is accomplished and it is part of the risk of being in business. They have to buy materials and pay employees with the expectation of payment in the future. Much like workers go to work on a Monday for the work that day, three Friday's later, business often have to float costs but for longer periods of time. If you are looking to be your own general contractor then you will have to float the money on your own. The money should not be used for living expenses or mortgage payments, it should be used for down payments in order to get the work of rebuilding started. </s>

Should I pay cash or prefer a 0% interest loan for home furnishings?

There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal. When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item. By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest. You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments. You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong. Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail. As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account. A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash.

<s>[INST] Should I pay cash or prefer a 0% interest loan for home furnishings? [/INST] There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal. When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item. By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest. You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments. You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong. Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail. As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account. A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash. </s>

What is the best way to save money from inflation and currency devaluation?

Generally speaking, so-called "hard assets" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a "harder" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.

<s>[INST] What is the best way to save money from inflation and currency devaluation? [/INST] Generally speaking, so-called "hard assets" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a "harder" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors. </s>

Are option contracts subject to mark to market rules

If I sell a covered call, on stock I own 100%, there is no risk of a margin call. The stock goes to zero, I'm still not ask to send in more money. But, if bought on margin, margin rules apply. A naked put would require you to be able to buy the stock if put to you. As the price of the stock drops, you still need to be able to buy it at the put strike price. Mark to market is just an expression describing how your positions are considered each day.

<s>[INST] Are option contracts subject to mark to market rules [/INST] If I sell a covered call, on stock I own 100%, there is no risk of a margin call. The stock goes to zero, I'm still not ask to send in more money. But, if bought on margin, margin rules apply. A naked put would require you to be able to buy the stock if put to you. As the price of the stock drops, you still need to be able to buy it at the put strike price. Mark to market is just an expression describing how your positions are considered each day. </s>

Over the long term, why invest in bonds?

If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that "the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds.

<s>[INST] Over the long term, why invest in bonds? [/INST] If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that "the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds. </s>

Reinvesting earnings increases the book value of equity?

The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other.

<s>[INST] Reinvesting earnings increases the book value of equity? [/INST] The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other. </s>

What to do if a state and federal refund is denied direct deposit?

It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just "endorsed", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.

<s>[INST] What to do if a state and federal refund is denied direct deposit? [/INST] It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just "endorsed", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason. </s>

W8-BEN for an Indian Citizen

According to the Form W-8BEN instructions for Part II, Line 10: Line 10. Line 10 must be used only if you are claiming treaty benefits that require that you meet conditions not covered by the representations you make on line 9 and Part III. For example, persons claiming treaty benefits on royalties must complete this line if the treaty contains different withholding rates for different types of royalties. In tax treaties, some of the benefits apply to every resident of a foreign country. Other benefits only apply to certain groups of people. Line 10 is where you affirm that you meet whatever special conditions are necessary in the treaty to obtain the benefit. If you are claiming that Article 15 of the U.S.-India Tax Treaty, you could use Line 10 to do this. It is important to remember that this form goes to the company paying you; it does not actually get sent to the IRS. Therefore, you can ask the company themselves if filling out Line 9 only will result in them withholding nothing, or if they would need you to fill out Line 10.

<s>[INST] W8-BEN for an Indian Citizen [/INST] According to the Form W-8BEN instructions for Part II, Line 10: Line 10. Line 10 must be used only if you are claiming treaty benefits that require that you meet conditions not covered by the representations you make on line 9 and Part III. For example, persons claiming treaty benefits on royalties must complete this line if the treaty contains different withholding rates for different types of royalties. In tax treaties, some of the benefits apply to every resident of a foreign country. Other benefits only apply to certain groups of people. Line 10 is where you affirm that you meet whatever special conditions are necessary in the treaty to obtain the benefit. If you are claiming that Article 15 of the U.S.-India Tax Treaty, you could use Line 10 to do this. It is important to remember that this form goes to the company paying you; it does not actually get sent to the IRS. Therefore, you can ask the company themselves if filling out Line 9 only will result in them withholding nothing, or if they would need you to fill out Line 10. </s>

Comparing the present value of total payment today and partial payments over 3 months

Its kind of a dumb question because no one believes that you can earn 8% in the short term in the market, but for arguments sake the math is painfully easy. Keep in mind I am an engineer not a finance guy. So the first payment will earn you one month at 8%, the second, two. In effect three months at 8% on 997. You can do it that way because the payments are equal: 997 * (.08 /12) *3 = earnings ~= 20 So with the second method you pay: 997 * 3 - 20 = 2971

<s>[INST] Comparing the present value of total payment today and partial payments over 3 months [/INST] Its kind of a dumb question because no one believes that you can earn 8% in the short term in the market, but for arguments sake the math is painfully easy. Keep in mind I am an engineer not a finance guy. So the first payment will earn you one month at 8%, the second, two. In effect three months at 8% on 997. You can do it that way because the payments are equal: 997 * (.08 /12) *3 = earnings ~= 20 So with the second method you pay: 997 * 3 - 20 = 2971 </s>

Is there an ETF or Mutual Fund which tracks James O'Shaugnessy's Trending 25 stock strategy?

Funds can't limit themselves to a small number of stocks without also limiting themselves to a small amount of total investment. I think 25 companies is too small to be practical from their point of view.

<s>[INST] Is there an ETF or Mutual Fund which tracks James O'Shaugnessy's Trending 25 stock strategy? [/INST] Funds can't limit themselves to a small number of stocks without also limiting themselves to a small amount of total investment. I think 25 companies is too small to be practical from their point of view. </s>

Should I remodel or buy a bigger house?

After a 6% commission to sell, you have $80K in equity. 20% down on a $400K house. 5% down will likely cost you PMI, and I don't know that you'll ever see a 3.14% rate. The realtor may very well have knowledge of the cost to finish a basement, but I don't ask my doctor for tax advice, and I'd not ask a realtor for construction advice. My basement flooring was $20/sqft for a gym quality rubber tile. You can also get $2/sqft carpet. I'd take the $15K number with a grain of salt until I got real bids. What's there now? Poured cement? Is there clearance to put in a proper subfloor and still have adequate ceiling height? There are a lot of details that you need to research to do it right. That said, the move to a bigger house impacts your ability to save to the extent that you are taking too large a risk. The basement finish, even if $20K, is just a bit more than the commission on your home. I like the idea of sticking it out. Once the nanny is gone, enjoy the extra income, and use the money to boost your savings and emergency funds. As I read your question again, I suggest you cut the college funding in favor of the emergency fund. What good is a funded college account if you have no funds to sustain you through a period of unemployment? There's a lot to be gained in holding tight for these 3 years. It seems that what's too small for 5 would be spacious once the nanny is gone and the basement added. The cost of a too-big house is enormous over the long run. It's going to rise in value with inflation, but no more, and has all the added costs that you've mentioned. On a personal note, I'm in a large house, with a dining room that's used 2 or 3 times a year, and a living room (different from family room) that is my dog's refuge, but we never go in there. In hindsight, a house 2/3 the size would have been ideal. Finishing the basement doesn't just buy you time, it eliminates the need for the larger house.

<s>[INST] Should I remodel or buy a bigger house? [/INST] After a 6% commission to sell, you have $80K in equity. 20% down on a $400K house. 5% down will likely cost you PMI, and I don't know that you'll ever see a 3.14% rate. The realtor may very well have knowledge of the cost to finish a basement, but I don't ask my doctor for tax advice, and I'd not ask a realtor for construction advice. My basement flooring was $20/sqft for a gym quality rubber tile. You can also get $2/sqft carpet. I'd take the $15K number with a grain of salt until I got real bids. What's there now? Poured cement? Is there clearance to put in a proper subfloor and still have adequate ceiling height? There are a lot of details that you need to research to do it right. That said, the move to a bigger house impacts your ability to save to the extent that you are taking too large a risk. The basement finish, even if $20K, is just a bit more than the commission on your home. I like the idea of sticking it out. Once the nanny is gone, enjoy the extra income, and use the money to boost your savings and emergency funds. As I read your question again, I suggest you cut the college funding in favor of the emergency fund. What good is a funded college account if you have no funds to sustain you through a period of unemployment? There's a lot to be gained in holding tight for these 3 years. It seems that what's too small for 5 would be spacious once the nanny is gone and the basement added. The cost of a too-big house is enormous over the long run. It's going to rise in value with inflation, but no more, and has all the added costs that you've mentioned. On a personal note, I'm in a large house, with a dining room that's used 2 or 3 times a year, and a living room (different from family room) that is my dog's refuge, but we never go in there. In hindsight, a house 2/3 the size would have been ideal. Finishing the basement doesn't just buy you time, it eliminates the need for the larger house. </s>

How much more than my mortgage should I charge for rent?

I think the mortgage must not be in the equation at all in order to determine how much to charge. Of course you want to cover your mortgage but the renting price is determined only by how much the renter is willing to pay (offer and demand) and not your mortgage (some people don't even have a mortgage). In other words I think you should be charging a price based on similar rented houses.

<s>[INST] How much more than my mortgage should I charge for rent? [/INST] I think the mortgage must not be in the equation at all in order to determine how much to charge. Of course you want to cover your mortgage but the renting price is determined only by how much the renter is willing to pay (offer and demand) and not your mortgage (some people don't even have a mortgage). In other words I think you should be charging a price based on similar rented houses. </s>

Why are some long term investors so concerned about their entry price?

Because buying at discount provides a considerable safety of margin -- it increases the likelihood of profiting. The margin serves to cushion future adverse price movement. Why is so much effort made to get a small percentage off an investment, if one is then willing to let the investment drop another 20% or more with the reason of being in it for the long term? Nobody can predict the stock price. Now if a long term investor happens to buy some stocks and the market crashes the next day, he could afford to wait for the stock prices to bounce back. Why should he sells immediately to incur a definite loss, should he has confidence in the underlying companies to recover eventually? One can choose to buy wisely, but the market fluctuation is out of his/her control. Wouldn't you agree that he/she should spend much efforts on something that can be controlled?

<s>[INST] Why are some long term investors so concerned about their entry price? [/INST] Because buying at discount provides a considerable safety of margin -- it increases the likelihood of profiting. The margin serves to cushion future adverse price movement. Why is so much effort made to get a small percentage off an investment, if one is then willing to let the investment drop another 20% or more with the reason of being in it for the long term? Nobody can predict the stock price. Now if a long term investor happens to buy some stocks and the market crashes the next day, he could afford to wait for the stock prices to bounce back. Why should he sells immediately to incur a definite loss, should he has confidence in the underlying companies to recover eventually? One can choose to buy wisely, but the market fluctuation is out of his/her control. Wouldn't you agree that he/she should spend much efforts on something that can be controlled? </s>

Is there a significant danger to market orders as opposed to limit orders?

The risk of market orders depends heavily on the size of the market and the exchange. On big exchange and a security which is traded in hue numbers you're likely that there are enough participants to give you a "fair" price. Doing a market order on a security which is hardly dealed you might make a bad deal. In Germany Tradegate Exchange and the sister company the bank Tradegate AG are known to play a bit dirty: Their market is open longer than Frankfurt (Xetra) and has way lower liquidity. So it can happen that not all sell or buy orders can be processes on the Exchange and open orders are kept. Then Tradegate AG steps in with a new offer to full-fill these trades selling high or buying low. There is a German article going in details on wiwo.de either German or via Google Translate

<s>[INST] Is there a significant danger to market orders as opposed to limit orders? [/INST] The risk of market orders depends heavily on the size of the market and the exchange. On big exchange and a security which is traded in hue numbers you're likely that there are enough participants to give you a "fair" price. Doing a market order on a security which is hardly dealed you might make a bad deal. In Germany Tradegate Exchange and the sister company the bank Tradegate AG are known to play a bit dirty: Their market is open longer than Frankfurt (Xetra) and has way lower liquidity. So it can happen that not all sell or buy orders can be processes on the Exchange and open orders are kept. Then Tradegate AG steps in with a new offer to full-fill these trades selling high or buying low. There is a German article going in details on wiwo.de either German or via Google Translate </s>

Does payment in goods count as “income” for tax purposes?

The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties. Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in. The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars.

<s>[INST] Does payment in goods count as “income” for tax purposes? [/INST] The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties. Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in. The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars. </s>

Reducing taxable income in US in December

Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.

<s>[INST] Reducing taxable income in US in December [/INST] Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation. </s>

Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?

Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity.

<s>[INST] Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market? [/INST] Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity. </s>

Why are fund managers' average/minimum purchase price from form 13F the same?

The GuruFocus Link is just reporting the high and low price of the quarter. Price Range (Average) – The estimated trade prices. The average price is calculated from the time weighted average during the period. If no price range is shown, the trade prices are estimated trade prices, which are more accurate estimates. AAPL: $420.05 - $549.03 ($467.26) The numbers for the high and low match what I found for AAPL on Yahoo Finance. Keep in mind their definition uses estimate 3 times.

<s>[INST] Why are fund managers' average/minimum purchase price from form 13F the same? [/INST] The GuruFocus Link is just reporting the high and low price of the quarter. Price Range (Average) – The estimated trade prices. The average price is calculated from the time weighted average during the period. If no price range is shown, the trade prices are estimated trade prices, which are more accurate estimates. AAPL: $420.05 - $549.03 ($467.26) The numbers for the high and low match what I found for AAPL on Yahoo Finance. Keep in mind their definition uses estimate 3 times. </s>

How do I figure out if I will owe taxes

Your employer pays the expected (but estimated) taxes for you. So the chances are you don't own more; but that might be different if you have other sources of income that he doesn't know about (interest on savings or a side-job or whatever). Also, you could have deductions that reduce the taxes you owe, which he again doesn't know, so you overpay. If you don't file, you don't get them back. Most tax software companies offer free usage of their tool for standard filings, and you can use it to find out your tax situation, and then buy the tool only when you want to file. If you use one of those, you can type in all your data, and depending on the result, decide to buy it and file right away. Note that if it turns out you owe taxes, you must file (and pay), but of course you can do it manually instead of buying the tool. If it turns out you get money back, it is your decision to file - you probably don't care for a small amount, but if you get 1000 $ back, you might want to file - again, buying the software of doing it manually.

<s>[INST] How do I figure out if I will owe taxes [/INST] Your employer pays the expected (but estimated) taxes for you. So the chances are you don't own more; but that might be different if you have other sources of income that he doesn't know about (interest on savings or a side-job or whatever). Also, you could have deductions that reduce the taxes you owe, which he again doesn't know, so you overpay. If you don't file, you don't get them back. Most tax software companies offer free usage of their tool for standard filings, and you can use it to find out your tax situation, and then buy the tool only when you want to file. If you use one of those, you can type in all your data, and depending on the result, decide to buy it and file right away. Note that if it turns out you owe taxes, you must file (and pay), but of course you can do it manually instead of buying the tool. If it turns out you get money back, it is your decision to file - you probably don't care for a small amount, but if you get 1000 $ back, you might want to file - again, buying the software of doing it manually. </s>

Understanding the phrase “afford to lose” better

It's a phrase that has no meaning out of context. When I go to Las Vegas (I don't go, but if I did) I would treat what I took as money I plan to lose. When I trade stock options and buy puts or calls, I view it as a calculated risk, with a far greater than zero chance of having the trade show zero in time. A single company has a chance of going bankrupt. A mix of stocks has risk, the S&P was at less than half its high in the 2008 crash. The money I had in the S&P was not money I could afford to lose, but I could afford to wait it out. There's a difference. We're not back at the highs, but we're close. By the way, there are many people who would not sleep knowing that their statement shows a 50% loss from a prior high point. Those people should be in a mix more suited to their risk tolerance.

<s>[INST] Understanding the phrase “afford to lose” better [/INST] It's a phrase that has no meaning out of context. When I go to Las Vegas (I don't go, but if I did) I would treat what I took as money I plan to lose. When I trade stock options and buy puts or calls, I view it as a calculated risk, with a far greater than zero chance of having the trade show zero in time. A single company has a chance of going bankrupt. A mix of stocks has risk, the S&P was at less than half its high in the 2008 crash. The money I had in the S&P was not money I could afford to lose, but I could afford to wait it out. There's a difference. We're not back at the highs, but we're close. By the way, there are many people who would not sleep knowing that their statement shows a 50% loss from a prior high point. Those people should be in a mix more suited to their risk tolerance. </s>

Is there lesser or no tax on assets?

US federal tax law distinguishes many types of income. For most people, most of their income is "earned income", money you were paid to do a job. Another category of income is "capital gains", money you made from the sale of an asset. For a variety of reasons, capital gains tax rates are lower than earned income tax rates. (For example, it is common that much of the gain is not real profit but inflation. If you buy an asset for $10,000 and sell it for $15,000, you pay capital gains tax on the $5,000 profit. But what if prices in general since you bought the asset have gone up 50%? Then your entire profit is really inflation, you didn't actually make any money -- but you still have to pay a tax on the paper gain.) So if you make your money by investing in assets -- buying and selling at a profit -- you will pay lower taxes than if you made the same amount of money by receiving a salary from a job, or by running a business where you sell your time and expertise rather than an asset. But money made from assets -- capital gains -- is not tax free. It's just a lower tax. It MIGHT be that when combined with other deductions and tax credits this would result in you paying no taxes in a particular year. Maybe you could avoid paying taxes forever if you can take advantage of tax loopholes. But for most people, making money from capital gains could result in lower taxes per dollar of income than someone doing more ordinary work. Or it could result in higher taxes, if you factor in inflation, net present value of money, and so on. BTW Warren Buffet's "secretary" is not a typist. She apparently makes at least $200,000 a year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/#ab91f3718b8a. And side note: if Warren Buffet thinks he isn't paying enough in taxes, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more? The government has a web site where citizens can voluntarily pay additional taxes. In 2015 they received $3.9 million in such contributions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

<s>[INST] Is there lesser or no tax on assets? [/INST] US federal tax law distinguishes many types of income. For most people, most of their income is "earned income", money you were paid to do a job. Another category of income is "capital gains", money you made from the sale of an asset. For a variety of reasons, capital gains tax rates are lower than earned income tax rates. (For example, it is common that much of the gain is not real profit but inflation. If you buy an asset for $10,000 and sell it for $15,000, you pay capital gains tax on the $5,000 profit. But what if prices in general since you bought the asset have gone up 50%? Then your entire profit is really inflation, you didn't actually make any money -- but you still have to pay a tax on the paper gain.) So if you make your money by investing in assets -- buying and selling at a profit -- you will pay lower taxes than if you made the same amount of money by receiving a salary from a job, or by running a business where you sell your time and expertise rather than an asset. But money made from assets -- capital gains -- is not tax free. It's just a lower tax. It MIGHT be that when combined with other deductions and tax credits this would result in you paying no taxes in a particular year. Maybe you could avoid paying taxes forever if you can take advantage of tax loopholes. But for most people, making money from capital gains could result in lower taxes per dollar of income than someone doing more ordinary work. Or it could result in higher taxes, if you factor in inflation, net present value of money, and so on. BTW Warren Buffet's "secretary" is not a typist. She apparently makes at least $200,000 a year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/#ab91f3718b8a. And side note: if Warren Buffet thinks he isn't paying enough in taxes, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more? The government has a web site where citizens can voluntarily pay additional taxes. In 2015 they received $3.9 million in such contributions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm </s>

What's a good free checking account?

Here's a hack for getting the "free" checking that requires direct deposit. Some effort to set up, but once everything is in place, it's all autopilot. (If your transfer into savings is higher than your transfer out of savings, you'll build up a nice little stash over time.) I don't know if there are deposit amounts or frequencies that you must have to qualify for the free account, if these are public or secret, or if this works everywhere. If anyone else has experience using this kind of hack, please leave a comment.

<s>[INST] What's a good free checking account? [/INST] Here's a hack for getting the "free" checking that requires direct deposit. Some effort to set up, but once everything is in place, it's all autopilot. (If your transfer into savings is higher than your transfer out of savings, you'll build up a nice little stash over time.) I don't know if there are deposit amounts or frequencies that you must have to qualify for the free account, if these are public or secret, or if this works everywhere. If anyone else has experience using this kind of hack, please leave a comment. </s>

What to do with $50,000?

Considered a down payment on a house? Some illiquid assets? Otherwise you are doing 'responsible' get rich slow (read: get rich old) type things. And this question only invites opinion based answer. You tried futures and don't want to take that kind of risk again with your $50,000, so thats that

<s>[INST] What to do with $50,000? [/INST] Considered a down payment on a house? Some illiquid assets? Otherwise you are doing 'responsible' get rich slow (read: get rich old) type things. And this question only invites opinion based answer. You tried futures and don't want to take that kind of risk again with your $50,000, so thats that </s>

Using simple moving average in Equity

A shorter term MA would be used for short term changes in price whilst a long term MA would be used for longer term movements in price. A 200 day SMA is widely used to determine the trend of the stock, simply a cross above the 200 day SMA would mean the stock may be entering an uptrend and a cross below that the price may be entering a downtrend. If the price is continuosly going above and below in a short period of time it is usually range trading. Then there are EMAs (Expodential Moving Averages) and WMAs (weighted moving averages) which give more emphasis to the latest price data than the earlier price data in the period chosen compared to a SMA. MAs can be used in many different ways, too many to list all here. The best way to learn about them is to read some TA books and articles about them, then choose a couple of strategies where you can use them in combination with a couple of other indicators that are complimentary with each other.

<s>[INST] Using simple moving average in Equity [/INST] A shorter term MA would be used for short term changes in price whilst a long term MA would be used for longer term movements in price. A 200 day SMA is widely used to determine the trend of the stock, simply a cross above the 200 day SMA would mean the stock may be entering an uptrend and a cross below that the price may be entering a downtrend. If the price is continuosly going above and below in a short period of time it is usually range trading. Then there are EMAs (Expodential Moving Averages) and WMAs (weighted moving averages) which give more emphasis to the latest price data than the earlier price data in the period chosen compared to a SMA. MAs can be used in many different ways, too many to list all here. The best way to learn about them is to read some TA books and articles about them, then choose a couple of strategies where you can use them in combination with a couple of other indicators that are complimentary with each other. </s>

How to account for a shared mortgage in QuickBooks Online?

How you should record the mortgage payments depends on if you are trying to achieve correct accounting, according to the standards, or if you are just tracking everything for you and your friends. If you're just keeping track for personal reasons, I'd suggest that you set up your check (or journal entry, your preference) how you'd like it to be recorded. Then, memorize that transaction. This allows you to use it as many times as you need to, without having to set it up each time. (Also note: there is no way to record a transaction that decreases cash and increases equity.) If you're trying to keep track of everything according to accounting standards, which it should be if you've set up an official business, then you have a lot more tracking to do with each payment. Mortgage payments technically do not affect the equity accounts of the owners. Each mortgage payment should decrease the bank balance, increase interest expense and decrease the mortgage balance, not to mention tracking any escrow account you may have. The equity accounts would be affected if the owners are contributing funds to the bank account, but equity would increase at the time the funds are deposited, not when the mortgage payments are made. Hope this helps!

<s>[INST] How to account for a shared mortgage in QuickBooks Online? [/INST] How you should record the mortgage payments depends on if you are trying to achieve correct accounting, according to the standards, or if you are just tracking everything for you and your friends. If you're just keeping track for personal reasons, I'd suggest that you set up your check (or journal entry, your preference) how you'd like it to be recorded. Then, memorize that transaction. This allows you to use it as many times as you need to, without having to set it up each time. (Also note: there is no way to record a transaction that decreases cash and increases equity.) If you're trying to keep track of everything according to accounting standards, which it should be if you've set up an official business, then you have a lot more tracking to do with each payment. Mortgage payments technically do not affect the equity accounts of the owners. Each mortgage payment should decrease the bank balance, increase interest expense and decrease the mortgage balance, not to mention tracking any escrow account you may have. The equity accounts would be affected if the owners are contributing funds to the bank account, but equity would increase at the time the funds are deposited, not when the mortgage payments are made. Hope this helps! </s>

How can I remove the movement of the stock market as a whole from the movement in price of an individual share?

The portion of a stock movement not correlated with stocks in general is called Alpha. I don't know of any online tools to graph alpha. Keep in mind that a company like Apple is so huge right now that any properly weighted index will have to correlate with it to some degree.

<s>[INST] How can I remove the movement of the stock market as a whole from the movement in price of an individual share? [/INST] The portion of a stock movement not correlated with stocks in general is called Alpha. I don't know of any online tools to graph alpha. Keep in mind that a company like Apple is so huge right now that any properly weighted index will have to correlate with it to some degree. </s>

Tax deductions on empty property

This doesn't sound very legal to me. Real estate losses cannot generally be deducted unless you have other real estate income. So the only case when this would work is when that person has bunch of other buildings that do produce income, and he reduces that income, for tax purposes, by deducting the expenses/depreciation/taxes for the buildings that do not. However, depreciation doesn't really reduce taxes, only defers them to the sale. As mhoran_psprep said - all the rest of the expenses will be minimal.

<s>[INST] Tax deductions on empty property [/INST] This doesn't sound very legal to me. Real estate losses cannot generally be deducted unless you have other real estate income. So the only case when this would work is when that person has bunch of other buildings that do produce income, and he reduces that income, for tax purposes, by deducting the expenses/depreciation/taxes for the buildings that do not. However, depreciation doesn't really reduce taxes, only defers them to the sale. As mhoran_psprep said - all the rest of the expenses will be minimal. </s>

How often do stocks become worthless?

The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the "penny stock" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it.

<s>[INST] How often do stocks become worthless? [/INST] The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the "penny stock" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it. </s>

Are services provided to Google employees taxed as income or in any way?

These services and other employee perks are referred to as fringe benefits. An employee "fringe benefit" is a form of pay other than money for the performance of services by employees. Any fringe benefit provided to an employee is taxable income for that person unless the tax law specifically excludes it from taxation. One example of taxable fringe benefit is award/prize money (to prevent someone from "winning" most of their salary tax-free.) Cash awards are taxable unless given to charity. Non-cash awards are taxable unless nominal in value or given to charity. A less intuitive example is clothing. Clothing given to employees that is suitable for street wear is a taxable fringe benefit. Your example possibly fits under de minims (low-cost) fringe benefits such as low-value birthday or holiday gifts, event tickets, traditional awards (such as a retirement gift), other special occasion gifts, and coffee and soft drinks working condition fringe benefits--that is, property and services provided to an employee so that the employee can perform his or her job. Note that "cafeteria plans" in the source don't refer to cafeteria but allow employee choice between benefit options available.

<s>[INST] Are services provided to Google employees taxed as income or in any way? [/INST] These services and other employee perks are referred to as fringe benefits. An employee "fringe benefit" is a form of pay other than money for the performance of services by employees. Any fringe benefit provided to an employee is taxable income for that person unless the tax law specifically excludes it from taxation. One example of taxable fringe benefit is award/prize money (to prevent someone from "winning" most of their salary tax-free.) Cash awards are taxable unless given to charity. Non-cash awards are taxable unless nominal in value or given to charity. A less intuitive example is clothing. Clothing given to employees that is suitable for street wear is a taxable fringe benefit. Your example possibly fits under de minims (low-cost) fringe benefits such as low-value birthday or holiday gifts, event tickets, traditional awards (such as a retirement gift), other special occasion gifts, and coffee and soft drinks working condition fringe benefits--that is, property and services provided to an employee so that the employee can perform his or her job. Note that "cafeteria plans" in the source don't refer to cafeteria but allow employee choice between benefit options available. </s>

Why do credit card transactions take up to 3 days to appear, yet debit transactions are instant?

When you swipe your credit card, the terminal at the store makes a request of your bank, and your bank has only a few seconds to accept or reject the transaction. Once the transaction is accepted by your bank, it appears in the Pending transactions. At the end of the business day, the store submits all of the final transactions for the day to their bank in a batch, and the banks all trade transactions in a batch, and money is sent between banks. This is the process that takes a couple of days, and after this happens, you see the transaction move from your Pending transactions into the regular transactions area. Most of the time, the pending transaction and the final transaction are the same. However, there are cases where it is different. A couple of examples: With a credit account, the fact that the final amount is not known for a few days is no big deal: after all, you don't have any money in the account, and if you end up spending more than you have, the bank will happily let you take your time coming up with the money (at a steep cost, of course). With a debit card tied to your checking account, the transaction is handled the same way, as far is the store is concerned. However, your bank is not going to run the risk of you overdrawing your checking account. They also are not going to run the risk of you withdrawing money from your account that is needed to cover pending transactions. So they usually treat these pending transactions as final transactions, deducting the pending transaction from your account balance immediately. When the final transaction comes through, they adjust the transaction, and your balance goes up or down accordingly. This is one of the big drawbacks to using a debit card, in my opinion. If a bad pending transaction comes through, you are out this money until it gets straightened out.

<s>[INST] Why do credit card transactions take up to 3 days to appear, yet debit transactions are instant? [/INST] When you swipe your credit card, the terminal at the store makes a request of your bank, and your bank has only a few seconds to accept or reject the transaction. Once the transaction is accepted by your bank, it appears in the Pending transactions. At the end of the business day, the store submits all of the final transactions for the day to their bank in a batch, and the banks all trade transactions in a batch, and money is sent between banks. This is the process that takes a couple of days, and after this happens, you see the transaction move from your Pending transactions into the regular transactions area. Most of the time, the pending transaction and the final transaction are the same. However, there are cases where it is different. A couple of examples: With a credit account, the fact that the final amount is not known for a few days is no big deal: after all, you don't have any money in the account, and if you end up spending more than you have, the bank will happily let you take your time coming up with the money (at a steep cost, of course). With a debit card tied to your checking account, the transaction is handled the same way, as far is the store is concerned. However, your bank is not going to run the risk of you overdrawing your checking account. They also are not going to run the risk of you withdrawing money from your account that is needed to cover pending transactions. So they usually treat these pending transactions as final transactions, deducting the pending transaction from your account balance immediately. When the final transaction comes through, they adjust the transaction, and your balance goes up or down accordingly. This is one of the big drawbacks to using a debit card, in my opinion. If a bad pending transaction comes through, you are out this money until it gets straightened out. </s>

Are credit cards not viewed as credit until you miss one payment?

First, a note of my personal experience: up until a year ago, my credit lines were composed exclusively of credit cards with perfect payment histories, and my credit score is fine. If you mean that credit cards have no impact on a person's credit score until they miss a payment, that is certainly not correct. FICO's website identifies "payment history" as 35% of your FICO score: The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you’ve paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. ... Credit payment history on many types of accounts Account types considered for payment history include: ... Details on late or missed payments ("delinquencies") and public record and collection items FICO® Scores consider: How many accounts show no late payment A good track record on most of your credit accounts will increase your FICO® Scores. Clearly, from the last item alone, we see that credit lines (a category which includes credit cards) with no late payments is a factor in computing your FICO score, and certainly other credit bureaus behave similarly. Possibly the banker was trying to explain some other point, like "If you're careful not to spend more on your card than you have in the bank, you can functionally treat your credit card as a debit line," but did so in a confusing way.

<s>[INST] Are credit cards not viewed as credit until you miss one payment? [/INST] First, a note of my personal experience: up until a year ago, my credit lines were composed exclusively of credit cards with perfect payment histories, and my credit score is fine. If you mean that credit cards have no impact on a person's credit score until they miss a payment, that is certainly not correct. FICO's website identifies "payment history" as 35% of your FICO score: The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you’ve paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. ... Credit payment history on many types of accounts Account types considered for payment history include: ... Details on late or missed payments ("delinquencies") and public record and collection items FICO® Scores consider: How many accounts show no late payment A good track record on most of your credit accounts will increase your FICO® Scores. Clearly, from the last item alone, we see that credit lines (a category which includes credit cards) with no late payments is a factor in computing your FICO score, and certainly other credit bureaus behave similarly. Possibly the banker was trying to explain some other point, like "If you're careful not to spend more on your card than you have in the bank, you can functionally treat your credit card as a debit line," but did so in a confusing way. </s>

How do I figure out if I will owe taxes

Do you have a regular job, where you work for somebody else and they pay you a salary? If so, they should be deducting estimated taxes from your paychecks and sending them in to the government. How much they deduct depends on your salary and what you put down on your W-4. Assuming you filled that out accurately, they will withhold an amount that should closely match the taxes you would owe if you took the standard deduction, have no income besides this job, and no unusual deductions. If that's the case, come next April 15 you will probably get a small refund. If you own a small business or are an independent contractor, then you have to estimate the taxes you will owe and make quarterly payments. If you're worried that the amount they're withholding doesn't sound right, then as GradeEhBacon says, get a copy of last year's tax forms (or this year's if they're out by now) -- paper or electronic -- fill them out by estimating what your total income will be for the year, etc, and see what the tax comes out to be.

<s>[INST] How do I figure out if I will owe taxes [/INST] Do you have a regular job, where you work for somebody else and they pay you a salary? If so, they should be deducting estimated taxes from your paychecks and sending them in to the government. How much they deduct depends on your salary and what you put down on your W-4. Assuming you filled that out accurately, they will withhold an amount that should closely match the taxes you would owe if you took the standard deduction, have no income besides this job, and no unusual deductions. If that's the case, come next April 15 you will probably get a small refund. If you own a small business or are an independent contractor, then you have to estimate the taxes you will owe and make quarterly payments. If you're worried that the amount they're withholding doesn't sound right, then as GradeEhBacon says, get a copy of last year's tax forms (or this year's if they're out by now) -- paper or electronic -- fill them out by estimating what your total income will be for the year, etc, and see what the tax comes out to be. </s>

Optimal way to use a credit card to build better credit?

Most business credit cards do not report to the personal credit report unless the person pays the card late. Given that fact, any debt carried on these cards does not hurt the credit score if it is not reported. You can carry credit card debt on these cards without hurting your credit score. Just apply for business credit cards now to start building this segment of your credit.

<s>[INST] Optimal way to use a credit card to build better credit? [/INST] Most business credit cards do not report to the personal credit report unless the person pays the card late. Given that fact, any debt carried on these cards does not hurt the credit score if it is not reported. You can carry credit card debt on these cards without hurting your credit score. Just apply for business credit cards now to start building this segment of your credit. </s>

Unusual real estate market with seemingly huge rental returns

The way to resolve your dilemma is to consult the price-to-rent ratio of the property. According to smartasset.com: The price-to-rent ratio is a measure of the relative affordability of renting and buying in a given housing market. It is calculated as the ratio of home prices to annual rental rates. So, for example, in a real estate market where, on average, a home worth $200,000 could rent for $1000 a month, the price-rent ratio is 16.67. That’s determined using the formula: $200,000 ÷ (12 x $1,000). Smartasset.com also goes on to give a table comparing different cities' price-to-rent ratio and then claim that the average price-to-rent ratio is currently 19.21. If your price-to-rent ratio is lower than 19.21, then, yes, your rents are more expensive than the average house. Smartasset.com claims that a high price-to-rent ratio is an argument in favor of tenants "renting" properties while a low price-to-rent ratio favors people "buying" (either to live in the property or to just rent it out to other people). So let's apply the price-to-rent ratio formula towards the properties you just quoted. There's a specific house I could buy for 190 (perhaps even less) that rents for exactly 2000 / month. 190K/(2000 * 12) = 7.92 There's a house for sale asking 400 (been on the market 2 yrs! could probably get for 350) which rents for 2800 /month. (400K)/(2800*12) = 11.90 (350K)/(2800*12) = 10.42 One can quite easily today buy a house for 180k-270k that would rent out for 1700-2100 / month. Lower Bound: (180K)/(1700*12) = 8.82 Upper Bound: (270K)/(2100*12) = 10.71 Even so, the rental returns here seem "ridiculously high" to me based on other markets I've noticed. Considering how the average price-to-rent ratio is 19.21, and your price-to-rent ratio ranges from 7.92 to 11.90, you are indeed correct. They are indeed "ridiculously high". Qualification: I was involved in real estate, and used the price-to-rent ratio to determine how long it would take to "recover" a person's investment in the property. Keep in mind that it's not the only thing I care about, and obviously the price-to-rent ratio tends to downplay expenses involved in actually owning properties and trying to deal with periods of vacancy. There's also the problem of taking into account demand as well. According to smartasset.com, Detroit, MI has the lowest price-to-rent ratio (with 6.27), which should suggest that people should buy properties immediately in this city. But that's probably more of a sign of people not wanting to move to Detroit and bid up the prices of properties. EDIT: I should also say that just because the properties are "ridiculously expensive" right now doesn't mean you should expect your rents to decrease. Rather, if rents keep staying at their current level, I'd predict that the property values will slowly increase in the future, thereby raising the price-to-rent ratio to 'non-ridiculous' mode.

<s>[INST] Unusual real estate market with seemingly huge rental returns [/INST] The way to resolve your dilemma is to consult the price-to-rent ratio of the property. According to smartasset.com: The price-to-rent ratio is a measure of the relative affordability of renting and buying in a given housing market. It is calculated as the ratio of home prices to annual rental rates. So, for example, in a real estate market where, on average, a home worth $200,000 could rent for $1000 a month, the price-rent ratio is 16.67. That’s determined using the formula: $200,000 ÷ (12 x $1,000). Smartasset.com also goes on to give a table comparing different cities' price-to-rent ratio and then claim that the average price-to-rent ratio is currently 19.21. If your price-to-rent ratio is lower than 19.21, then, yes, your rents are more expensive than the average house. Smartasset.com claims that a high price-to-rent ratio is an argument in favor of tenants "renting" properties while a low price-to-rent ratio favors people "buying" (either to live in the property or to just rent it out to other people). So let's apply the price-to-rent ratio formula towards the properties you just quoted. There's a specific house I could buy for 190 (perhaps even less) that rents for exactly 2000 / month. 190K/(2000 * 12) = 7.92 There's a house for sale asking 400 (been on the market 2 yrs! could probably get for 350) which rents for 2800 /month. (400K)/(2800*12) = 11.90 (350K)/(2800*12) = 10.42 One can quite easily today buy a house for 180k-270k that would rent out for 1700-2100 / month. Lower Bound: (180K)/(1700*12) = 8.82 Upper Bound: (270K)/(2100*12) = 10.71 Even so, the rental returns here seem "ridiculously high" to me based on other markets I've noticed. Considering how the average price-to-rent ratio is 19.21, and your price-to-rent ratio ranges from 7.92 to 11.90, you are indeed correct. They are indeed "ridiculously high". Qualification: I was involved in real estate, and used the price-to-rent ratio to determine how long it would take to "recover" a person's investment in the property. Keep in mind that it's not the only thing I care about, and obviously the price-to-rent ratio tends to downplay expenses involved in actually owning properties and trying to deal with periods of vacancy. There's also the problem of taking into account demand as well. According to smartasset.com, Detroit, MI has the lowest price-to-rent ratio (with 6.27), which should suggest that people should buy properties immediately in this city. But that's probably more of a sign of people not wanting to move to Detroit and bid up the prices of properties. EDIT: I should also say that just because the properties are "ridiculously expensive" right now doesn't mean you should expect your rents to decrease. Rather, if rents keep staying at their current level, I'd predict that the property values will slowly increase in the future, thereby raising the price-to-rent ratio to 'non-ridiculous' mode. </s>

What is the difference between speculating and investing?

Classic investing guru Benjamin Graham defines "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return." He contrasts this with speculation which is anything else (no thorough analysis, no safety of principal, or no adequate return). The word "adequate" is important, since it contrasts adequate returns with those that are either lower than needed or higher than necessary to reach your goals.

<s>[INST] What is the difference between speculating and investing? [/INST] Classic investing guru Benjamin Graham defines "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return." He contrasts this with speculation which is anything else (no thorough analysis, no safety of principal, or no adequate return). The word "adequate" is important, since it contrasts adequate returns with those that are either lower than needed or higher than necessary to reach your goals. </s>

S&P is consistently beating inflation?

Inflation and stock returns are completely different things The CPI tracks the changes in the prices of a basket of goods a consumer might buy, the S&P 500 tracks the returns earned by investors in the equity of large companies. The two are very different things, and not closely linked. Example: A world without inflation Consider a world in which there was no inflation. Prices are fixed. Should stocks return zero? Certainly not. Companies take raw materials and produce goods and services that have value greater than that of the raw materials. They create new wealth. This wealth becomes profit for the company, which then is passed on to the owners of the company (equityholders) either in the form of dividends or, more commonly, price increases. Example: A world with no inflation and no economic growth Note that I have not implied above that companies have to grow in order for returns to outperform inflation. Total stock returns depend on the current and expected profit of the firm. Firms can remain the same size and continually kick out profits. Total returns will be positive in this environment even if there is no growth and no inflation. If the firms pay the money out as dividends, investors get a cash flow. If they retain these earnings, the value of the firm's equity increases. Total returns take both types of income into account. Technically the S&P 500 is not a total return index, but in our current legal and corporate culture environment, there is a preference for retaining profits rather than paying them out. This causes price increases. Risk bearing In principle, if profit was assured, then investors would bid up stock prices so high that profit would have to compete with the risk-free rate, which often is close to inflation (like, right now). However, profit is not assured. Firm profit swings around over time and constitutes a significant source of risk. We can think of the owners of the firm as being the bondholders and equityholders. These assets are structured such that almost all the profit risk is born by equityholders. We can therefore think of equityholders as being compensated for bearing the risk that would otherwise be born by bondholders. Because equityholders are bearing risk, stock prices must be low enough that stocks have a positive expected return (above the risk-free rate, which is presumably not significantly below inflation). This is true for the same reason that insurance premiums are positive--people have to be compensated for bearing risk. See my answer to this question for a discussion of why risk means we should expect stock prices to increase indefinitely (even if inflation halts). The S&P is not a measure of firm size or value The S&P measures the return earned by investors, not the size of US companies. True, if constituent companies grow and nothing else changes, the index goes up, but if a company shrinks a lot, it gets dropped out, rather than dragging the index down. By the way, please note that dollars "put into" equities are not stuck somewhere. They are passed on to the seller, who then uses it to buy something (even if this is a new equity issuance and the seller is the firm itself). The logic that growth of firms somehow sucks money out of usage is incorrect.

<s>[INST] S&P is consistently beating inflation? [/INST] Inflation and stock returns are completely different things The CPI tracks the changes in the prices of a basket of goods a consumer might buy, the S&P 500 tracks the returns earned by investors in the equity of large companies. The two are very different things, and not closely linked. Example: A world without inflation Consider a world in which there was no inflation. Prices are fixed. Should stocks return zero? Certainly not. Companies take raw materials and produce goods and services that have value greater than that of the raw materials. They create new wealth. This wealth becomes profit for the company, which then is passed on to the owners of the company (equityholders) either in the form of dividends or, more commonly, price increases. Example: A world with no inflation and no economic growth Note that I have not implied above that companies have to grow in order for returns to outperform inflation. Total stock returns depend on the current and expected profit of the firm. Firms can remain the same size and continually kick out profits. Total returns will be positive in this environment even if there is no growth and no inflation. If the firms pay the money out as dividends, investors get a cash flow. If they retain these earnings, the value of the firm's equity increases. Total returns take both types of income into account. Technically the S&P 500 is not a total return index, but in our current legal and corporate culture environment, there is a preference for retaining profits rather than paying them out. This causes price increases. Risk bearing In principle, if profit was assured, then investors would bid up stock prices so high that profit would have to compete with the risk-free rate, which often is close to inflation (like, right now). However, profit is not assured. Firm profit swings around over time and constitutes a significant source of risk. We can think of the owners of the firm as being the bondholders and equityholders. These assets are structured such that almost all the profit risk is born by equityholders. We can therefore think of equityholders as being compensated for bearing the risk that would otherwise be born by bondholders. Because equityholders are bearing risk, stock prices must be low enough that stocks have a positive expected return (above the risk-free rate, which is presumably not significantly below inflation). This is true for the same reason that insurance premiums are positive--people have to be compensated for bearing risk. See my answer to this question for a discussion of why risk means we should expect stock prices to increase indefinitely (even if inflation halts). The S&P is not a measure of firm size or value The S&P measures the return earned by investors, not the size of US companies. True, if constituent companies grow and nothing else changes, the index goes up, but if a company shrinks a lot, it gets dropped out, rather than dragging the index down. By the way, please note that dollars "put into" equities are not stuck somewhere. They are passed on to the seller, who then uses it to buy something (even if this is a new equity issuance and the seller is the firm itself). The logic that growth of firms somehow sucks money out of usage is incorrect. </s>

If I have no exemptions or deductions, just a simple paycheck, do I HAVE to file taxes?

You are not required to file a tax return in Canada if you have no taxable income. If you do not file a return you may be requested to by Canada Revenue Agency, and then you'll need to file one. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadian residents who do not file tax returns. The Minister who overlooks the CRA may assess any amount of taxes on any resident whether they file a return or not. There are penalties for failing to file a return or filing late. The penalties are based on a percentage of the taxes owed. If you owe no taxes, then the penalties are meaningless.

<s>[INST] If I have no exemptions or deductions, just a simple paycheck, do I HAVE to file taxes? [/INST] You are not required to file a tax return in Canada if you have no taxable income. If you do not file a return you may be requested to by Canada Revenue Agency, and then you'll need to file one. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadian residents who do not file tax returns. The Minister who overlooks the CRA may assess any amount of taxes on any resident whether they file a return or not. There are penalties for failing to file a return or filing late. The penalties are based on a percentage of the taxes owed. If you owe no taxes, then the penalties are meaningless. </s>

What is the difference between a check and a paycheck?

A paycheck is simply a check for your salary. It's just like a rent check, or a birthday check, or a grocery check... I've had "paychecks" that were personal checks from the owner of the business, I've had ones that are printed in the office I worked in and signed right there, and I've had paychecks that are printed through a third party company and mailed to me (my favorite, of course, is to forgo the "paycheck" entirely and get direct deposit :) ). Really, they're all just checks. Although that's a little disingenuous, because banks are often slightly more trusting of paychecks. However, this has little to do with it being a "paycheck," per se, and more to do with the fact that they see you getting the same check for (roughly) the same amount on a regular basis; having seen you get a paycheck for the same amount from the same company for the last 12 months, there is less risk of the check bouncing or being returned unpaid, so you can often get banks to waive their hold policy and just give you the money.

<s>[INST] What is the difference between a check and a paycheck? [/INST] A paycheck is simply a check for your salary. It's just like a rent check, or a birthday check, or a grocery check... I've had "paychecks" that were personal checks from the owner of the business, I've had ones that are printed in the office I worked in and signed right there, and I've had paychecks that are printed through a third party company and mailed to me (my favorite, of course, is to forgo the "paycheck" entirely and get direct deposit :) ). Really, they're all just checks. Although that's a little disingenuous, because banks are often slightly more trusting of paychecks. However, this has little to do with it being a "paycheck," per se, and more to do with the fact that they see you getting the same check for (roughly) the same amount on a regular basis; having seen you get a paycheck for the same amount from the same company for the last 12 months, there is less risk of the check bouncing or being returned unpaid, so you can often get banks to waive their hold policy and just give you the money. </s>

Company stock listed in multiple exchanges?

It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose.

<s>[INST] Company stock listed in multiple exchanges? [/INST] It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose. </s>

Events that cause major movement in forex?

Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out.

<s>[INST] Events that cause major movement in forex? [/INST] Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out. </s>

How does a online only bank protect itself against fraud?

There are Cyber Security and Reporting Standards which Financial Service Provider (Banks and Financial services where customers deposit and/or transact fiat currency) You can find a comprehensive list on Wikipedia under Cyber security standards Depending on the geographic location there might be local Govt requirements such as reporting issues, data security etc. Concerning point 1. We have to differ between a fraudulent customer and an attacker on the banks infrastructure. Fraudulent customers / customers that have been compromised by third parties are identified with but not limited to credit scores and merchant databases or data from firms specialized in "Fraud Prevention". Attackers (Criminals that intend to steal, manipulate or spy on data) are identified/prevented/recorded by but not limited to IDS solutions and attacker databases. For firms that get compensation by insurances the most important thing is the compilant with law and have records of everything, they rather focus on recording data to backtrack attackers than preventing attacks. Concerning point 2. For you as customer the local law and deposit insurance are the most important things. Banks are insured and usually compensate customers on money theft. The authentication and PIN / TAN methods are most crucial but standard - these authentication methods consist of one password and one offline part such as a TAN from a paperletter or a RSA generator or card reader. WRAPUP: Financial institutions have to comply with local law and meet international standards. Banks use highly advanced Intrusion detection and fraud prevention which logically must be based on databases. For the average joe customer there is seldom high risk to lose deposits even if the attackers gains full access to the bank account but this depends a lot on the country you reside in. Concerning targeted attacks:

<s>[INST] How does a online only bank protect itself against fraud? [/INST] There are Cyber Security and Reporting Standards which Financial Service Provider (Banks and Financial services where customers deposit and/or transact fiat currency) You can find a comprehensive list on Wikipedia under Cyber security standards Depending on the geographic location there might be local Govt requirements such as reporting issues, data security etc. Concerning point 1. We have to differ between a fraudulent customer and an attacker on the banks infrastructure. Fraudulent customers / customers that have been compromised by third parties are identified with but not limited to credit scores and merchant databases or data from firms specialized in "Fraud Prevention". Attackers (Criminals that intend to steal, manipulate or spy on data) are identified/prevented/recorded by but not limited to IDS solutions and attacker databases. For firms that get compensation by insurances the most important thing is the compilant with law and have records of everything, they rather focus on recording data to backtrack attackers than preventing attacks. Concerning point 2. For you as customer the local law and deposit insurance are the most important things. Banks are insured and usually compensate customers on money theft. The authentication and PIN / TAN methods are most crucial but standard - these authentication methods consist of one password and one offline part such as a TAN from a paperletter or a RSA generator or card reader. WRAPUP: Financial institutions have to comply with local law and meet international standards. Banks use highly advanced Intrusion detection and fraud prevention which logically must be based on databases. For the average joe customer there is seldom high risk to lose deposits even if the attackers gains full access to the bank account but this depends a lot on the country you reside in. Concerning targeted attacks: </s>

Buying a foreclosed property

Like most other things, this is "sometimes," but not always true. Sometimes banks will be willing to sell at a discount, sometimes they will hold out for "full price." But if you want a discount, this is a good place to "look."

<s>[INST] Buying a foreclosed property [/INST] Like most other things, this is "sometimes," but not always true. Sometimes banks will be willing to sell at a discount, sometimes they will hold out for "full price." But if you want a discount, this is a good place to "look." </s>