Datasets:

truocpham

/

fintechqa

like 0

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Investments other than CDs? [/INST] First off, you have done very well to be in your financial position at your age. Congratulations. I first started investing seriously about 10 years ago, and when I started, I had a similar attitude to you. Learning how to invest is a journey, and it will take you a while to learn both the intellectual and emotional sides of investing. First off, there is nothing wrong with having a chunk of cash that you aren't investing effectively. It is far better to be losing earning power WRT inflation that it is to make a bad investment, where you can lose all your money quite quickly. I have perhaps 15% of my capital just sitting around right now because I don't have any place where I'm excited to put it. For your IRA, I would look at the options you have, and choose one that is reasonably well diversified and has low costs. In most cases, an index fund is a reasonable choice. My 401K goes into an S&P 500 index fund, and I don't have to worry about it. Beyond that, I suggest spending some time learning about investing, and then making some small and conservative investments. I've learned a lot from the Motley Fool web site. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Choosing a vehicle to invest a kid's money on their behalf (college, etc.)? [/INST] Roth is currently not an option, unless you can manage to document income. At 6, this would be difficult but not impossible. My daughter was babysitting at 10, that's when we started her Roth. The 529 is the only option listed that offers the protection of not permitting an 18 year old to "blow the money." But only if you maintain ownership with the child as beneficiary. The downside of the 529 is the limited investment options, extra layer of fees, and the potential to pay tax if the money is withdrawn without child going to college. As you noted, since it's his money already, you should not be the owner of the account. That would be stealing. The regular account, a UGMA, is his money, but you have to act as custodian. A minor can't trade his own stock account. In that account, you can easily manage it to take advantage of the kiddie tax structure. The first $1000 of realized gains go untaxed, the next $1000 is at his rate, 10%. Above this, is taxed at your rate, with the chance for long tern capital gains at a 15% rate. When he actually has income, you can deposit the lesser of up to the full income or $5500 into a Roth. This was how we shifted this kind of gift money to my daughter's Roth IRA. $2000 income from sitting permitted her to deposit $2000 in funds to the Roth. The income must be documented, but the dollars don't actually need to be the exact dollars earned. This money grows tax free and the deposits may be withdrawn without penalty. The gains are tax free if taken after age 59-1/2. Please comment if you'd like me to expand on any piece of this answer. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Choosing a vehicle to invest a kid's money on their behalf (college, etc.)? [/INST] One other advantage of a 529 versus a simple investment account (like an UGMA/UTMA) is that the treatment for the purposes of financial aid is more advantageous (FinAid.org). Even if it is a custodial account (in which the student is both the owner and beneficiary), it is treated as a parental asset when completing the FAFSA. That means the amount that will be considered available each year towards the Estimated Family Contribution (EFC) will be greatly reduced. To be sure, this does not help with all colleges (often ones that use the CSS/PROFILE in addition to the FAFSA). Some will simply assume that 25% of the 529 will be used each year. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> How to calculate years until financial independence? [/INST] The definition I use for financial independence is 99% confidence that, at a specific estimated spending rate per year (allowing for estimated inflation, and budgeting for likely medical emergencies, and taxes on taxable investments), the money will outlast me. This translates to needing an average annual return on investment which covers the average yearly spending. For my purposes, that works out to my relying on being able to draw only a 4% income from the money each year, which should give me good odds of the money not just being sufficient but being able to deliver that rate "forever". (Historically, average US stock market rate if return is around 8%.) That is overkill, if course, I could plan on the money just barely lasting past my 120th birthday or something of that sort, but the goal us to be pretty sure not only that I won't run out but that I will have some cash unexpected needs. Which in turn means that I estimate I need investments 1/.04 times the yearly spending estimate to declare the "forever" independence/retirement, or 25x the yearly. From that, I can calculate how much longer, at a given savings rate and rate of return, it'll take for me to reach that target. Obviously you need to adjust all these numbers to reflect your opinions/understanding if the market, your own needs, your priorities and expected maximum age, and the phase of Saturn's moons. But that's the basic rationale. Or you can pay a financial planner to give you this number, and a strategy for getting there, based on the numbers you give him or her plus some statistical analysis of the market's overall history. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> How to calculate years until financial independence? [/INST] In this equation the withdrawal rate is the percent you must pull from your savings to meet your expenses. For example if your savings is $100,000 and you need $10,000 annually for your living expenses then your withdrawal rate would be 10% (where 10k is 10% of 100k). To complete this formula, you need to know how much savings you need to be financially independent before you can use this formula to find out how long it will take you. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Negative interest rates and search for yield [/INST] Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. "Risk" is just a fancy word for "Will I make money in the near/ long future." No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. "Tremendous Losses" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Invest in (say, index funds) vs spending all money on home? [/INST] Rules of thumb? Sure - Put down 20% to pay no PMI. The mortgage payment (including property tax) should be no more than 28% of your gross monthly income. These two rules will certainly put a cap on the home price. If you have more than the 20% to put down on the house you like, stop right here. Don't put more down and don't buy a bigger house. Set that money aside for long term investing (i.e. retirement savings) or your emergency fund. You can always make extra payments and shorten the length of the mortgage, you just can't easily get it back. In my opinion, one is better off getting a home that's too small and paying the transaction costs to upsize 5-10 years later than to buy too big, and pay all the costs associated with the home for the time you are living there. The mortgage, property tax, maintenance, etc. The too-big house can really take it toll on your wallet. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Invest in (say, index funds) vs spending all money on home? [/INST] The short answer is that it depends on the taxation laws in your country. The long answer is that there are usually tax avoidance mechanisms that you can use which may make it more economically feasible for you to go one way or the other. Consider the following: The long term average growth rate of the stock market in Australia is around 7%. The average interest on a mortgage is 4.75%. Assuming you have money left over from a 20% deposit, you have a few options. You could: 1) Put that money into an index fund for the long term, understanding that the market may not move for a decade, or even move downwards; 2) Dump that money straight into the mortgage; 3) Put that money in an offset account Option 1 will get you (over the course of 30-40 years) around 7% return. If and when that profit is realised it will be taxed at a minimum of half your marginal tax rate (probably around 20%, netting you around 5.25%) Option 2 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free Option 3 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free with the added bonus that the money is ready for you to draw upon on short notice. Of the three options, until you have a good 3+ months of living expenses covered, I'd go with the offset account every single time. Once you have a few months worth of living expenses covered, I would the adopt a policy of spreading your risk. In Australia, that would mean extra contributions to my Super (401k in the US) and possibly purchasing an investment property as well (once I had the capital to positively gear it). Of course, you should find out more about the tax laws in your country and do your own maths. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Invest in (say, index funds) vs spending all money on home? [/INST] Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka "people to lug your stuff"). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-) </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> What are a few sites that make it easy to invest in high interest rate mutual funds? [/INST] If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think "emerging markets". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> What are a few sites that make it easy to invest in high interest rate mutual funds? [/INST] Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> What are a few sites that make it easy to invest in high interest rate mutual funds? [/INST] Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Definitions of leverage and of leverage factor [/INST] Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Definitions of leverage and of leverage factor [/INST] This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Definitions of leverage and of leverage factor [/INST] Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> How useful is the PEG Ratio for large cap stocks? [/INST] It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you! </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Is is possible to dispute IRS underpayment penalties? [/INST] When you say "set aside," you mean you saved to pay the tax due in April? That's underpaying. It's a rare exception the IRS makes for this penalty, hopefully it wasn't too large, and you now know how much to withhold through payroll deductions. Problem is, this wasn't unusual, it was an oversight. You have no legitimate grounds to dispute. Sorry. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Is is possible to dispute IRS underpayment penalties? [/INST] If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a "deluxe" or "premier" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Is is possible to dispute IRS underpayment penalties? [/INST] didn't pay the extra underpayment penalty on the grounds that it was an honest mistake. You seem to think a penalty applies only when the IRS thinks you were trying to cheat the system. That's not the case. A mistake (honest or otherwise) still can imply a penalty. While you can appeal just about anything, on any grounds you like, it's unlikely you will prevail. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Is is possible to dispute IRS underpayment penalties? [/INST] The underpayment "penalty" is just interest on the late payments--willful or not has nothing to do with it. When they feel it's willful there will be additional penalties. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Should I save for my children's university education in Canada, or am I better off paying off loans and gaining debt room? [/INST] At the very least I'd look closely at what you could get from the RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan). Depending on your income the government are quite generous with grants and bonds you can get over $11,000 of 'free' money if you qualify for everything CESG - Canada Education Savings Grant By applying for the CESG, up to $7,200 can be directly deposited by the Federal Government into your RESP. The Canada Education Savings Grant section offers information about eligibility requirements for the grant as well as how to use it when the beneficiary enrolls at a post-secondary institution. CLB - Canada Learning Bond CLB is available to children born after December 31st, 2003 if an RESP has been opened on their behalf. Browse the Canada Learning Bond section to find out who is eligible, how to apply, and how much the Government of Canada will contribute to your RESP. I can recomend the TD e-series funds as a low cost way of getting stock market exposure in your RESP So if I were you... As an example if you earn $40k and you pay in the minimum amount to get all the grants ($500/year, $42/month) assuming zero growth you'll have almost $14k of which $5.4k would have been given to you buy the government, if you can afford to save $200/month you'll get over $11,000 from the government </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Is a credit card deposit a normal part of the vehicle purchase process [/INST] Unfortunately, it's not unusual enough. If you're looking for a popular car and the dealer wants to make sure they aren't holding onto inventory without a guarantee for sale, then it's a not completely unreasonable request. You'll want to make sure that the deposit is on credit card, not cash or check, so you can dispute if an issue arises. Really though, most dealers don't do this, requiring a deposit, pre sale is usually one of those hardball negotiating tactics where the dealer wrangles you into a deal, even if they don't have a good deal to make. Dealers may tell you that you can't get your deposit back, even if they don't have the car you agreed on or the deal they agreed to. You do have a right for your deposit back if you haven't completed the transaction, but it can be difficult if they don't want to give you your money back. The dealer doesn't ever "not know if they have that specific vehicle in stock". The dealer keeps comprehensive searchable records for every vehicle, it's good for sales and it's required for tax records. Even when they didn't use computers for all this, the entire inventory is a log book or phone call away. In my opinion, I would never exchange anything with the dealer without a car actually attached to the deal. I'd put down a deposit on a car transfer if I were handed a VIN and verified that it had all the exact options that we agreed upon, and even then I'd be very cautious about the condition. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> How will I pay for college? [/INST] First, it's clear from your story that you very likely should be able to receive some financial aid. That may be in the form of loans or, better, grants in which you just get free money to attend college. For example, a Pell grant. You won't get all you'd need for a free ride this way, but you can really make a dent in what you'd pay. The college may likely also provide financial aid to you. In order to get any of this, though, you have to fill out a FAFSA. There are deadlines for this for each state and each college (there you would ask individually). I'd get looking into that as soon as you can. Do student loans have to be paid monthly? Any loan is a specific agreement between a lender and a borrower, so any payment terms could apply, such as bimonthly or quarterly. But monthly seems like the most reasonable assumption. Generally, you should assume the least favorable (reasonably likely) terms for you, so that you are prepared for a worst-case scenario. Let's say monthly. Can I just, as I had hoped, borrow large sums of money and only start paying them after college? Yes. That is a fair summary of all a student loan is. Importantly, though, some loans are federal government subsidized loans for which the interest on the loan is paid for you as long as you stay in college + 6 months (although do check that is the current situation). Unsubsidized loans may accrue interest from the start of the loan period. If you have the option, obviously try hard to get the subsidized loans as the interest can be significant. I made a point to only take subsidized loans. WARNING: Student loans currently enjoy a (nearly?) unique status in America as being one of the only loan types that are not forgivable in bankruptcy. This means that if you leave college with $100,000 in debt that begins accruing interest, there is no way for you to get out of it short of fleeing the country or existence. And at that point the creditors may come after your mother for the balance. These loans can balloon into outrageous amounts due to compounding interest. Please have a healthy fear of student loans. For more on this, listen to this hour long radio program about this. Would a minimum wage job help, Of course it will "help" but will it "help enough"? That depends on how much you work. If you make $7.50/hr and work 20 hrs/week for all but 3 weeks of the year, after taxes you will be adding about $6,000 to offset your costs. In 3 years of college (*see below), that's $18,000, which, depending on where you go, is not bad at helping defray costs. If you are at full-time (40 hrs), then it is $12k/yr or $36k toward defraying costs. These numbers are nothing to sniff at. Do you have any computer/web/graphics skills? It's possible you could find ways to make more than minimum wage if you learn some niche IT industry skill. (If I could go back and re-do those years I wouldn't have wasted much time delivering pizzas and would have learned HTML in the 90s and would have potentially made some significant money.) would college and full-time job be manageable together? That's highly specific to each situation (which job? how far a commute to it? which major? how efficient are you? how easily do you learn?) but I would say that, for the most part, it's not a good idea, not only for the academic-achievement side of it, but the personal-enrichment aspect of college. Clubs, sports, relationships, activities, dorm bull sessions, all that good stuff, they deserve their space and time and it'd be a shame to miss out on that because you're on the 2nd shift at Wal-Mart 40hrs/week. How do I find out what scholarships, grants, and financial aid I can apply for? Are you in a high school with a career or guidance counselor? If so, go to that person about this as a start. If not, there are tons of resources out there. Public libraries should have huge directories of scholarships. The Federal Student Loan program has a website. There are also a lot of resources online found by just searching Google for scholarships--though do be careful about any online sources (including this advice!). Sermon: Lastly, please carefully consider the overall cost vs. benefit to you. College in 2012 is anything but cheap. A typical price for a textbook is $150 or more. Tuition and board can range over $40k at private colleges. There is a recent growing call for Americans to re-think the automatic nature of going to college considering the enormous financial burden it puts many families under. Charles Murray, for one, has put out a book suggesting that far too many students go to college now, to society's and many individuals' detriment (he's a controversial thinker, but I think some of his points are valid and actually urgent). With all that said, consider ways to go to college but keep costs down. Public colleges in your state will almost always be significantly cheaper than private or out-of-state. Once there, aim for As and Bs--don't cheat yourself out of what you pay for. And lastly, consider a plan in which you complete college in three years, by attending summer courses. This website has a number of other options for helping to reduce the cost of college. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> How will I pay for college? [/INST] Firstly, good on you for thinking about it before you commit to it. Next. Chelonian provides lots of detail. Read that answer. Consider the cost of going. Use your local community college. Use a state school. Get a job as an intern or another entry level position, with an employer that will reimburse you for education. Consider the military in the United State. Consider not going. That last one sounds rough, but do you have a very clear idea in your mind what you want to do for a living? I would suggest that at today's costs, figuring out what you want to do should be done before you commit to school. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> How will I pay for college? [/INST] You sound like you're well educated, well spoken, and resourceful, so I'm going to assume that you are somewhere in the neighborhood of top 5% material. That means you can pretty much do anything you want to if you put enough effort into it. There are two types of people in this world: those who run the world and those who live comfortably in it (and, of course, everyone else, but they are irrelevant to the discussion). Who do you want to be? I've been around a lot of wildly successful people, and they have two consistent traits: connections and freedom. First, everyone always told me that "it's not what you know, it's who you know", but I never appreciated it until after college. The world runs on connections. The more connections you have, and the more successful they are, the more successful you will be. Second, the more freedom you have, the more opportunity you will have to take chances, which is how you become wildly successful. Freedom comes from not being in debt (first) and having money (second). Why do you think Harvard grads are the guys that end up having so much money and power? It's probably because they grew up in a rich family which provided them money (freedom) and a wide social circle of rich people (connections). So you're not rich. What to do? Well, the easiest way to get into that group is to go to college with them. And that means you need to get into Harvard or another Ivy League. Stanford if you want to be an engineer. College will be where you will make your most intense and long-lasting friendships. That roommate at Harvard that you went on the crazy four-day road trip with may someday be CEO of a company... and when he needs a CIO, you can be damn sure you'll be at the top of the list if you're qualified. But Harvard costs a lot of money...which means you'll be in debt, a lot, when you get out of college. You'll have lots of rich, important friends(connections), but you'll be deeply in debt (no freedom). Most of these type of people end up becoming consultants at big firms because they pay well. You'll live a comfortable life and pay off your student loans in five or 10 years. Then you'll continue to live comfortably, but at that point you'll be too old to take huge chances and too comfortable to change things (or perhaps you'll have a big mortgage = no freedom). With a heavy debt load, it's almost impossible to, say, join an early stage startup and really be able to take huge chances. You can do it, maybe. Or, as an alternate option, you can do what I did. Go to a cheap state school and graduate with no debt. That puts you on the other side of the fence: freedom, but no connections. Then, in order to be successful, you have to figure out how to get connections. Goldman Sachs won't hire you, and everyone you meet is going to automatically assume you're mediocre because of where you went to college. At this point, your only option is to take big chances. Move to New York or San Francisco, offer to work for free as an intern somewhere or something. It can be done, and it's really not too hard, you just have to have lots of spending restraint because the little money you have has to go a long way. So what are the other options? Well, some people are recommending that you think about not going to college at all. That will certainly save you money and give you a four year head start on whatever you decide to do (freedom), but you'll forever be branded as that guy without a college degree. Think my second option above but just two or three times worse. You won't even get that free internship, and you'll be that weird guy at dinner parties who can"t answer the first question "So, where did you go to college?". It doesn't matter if you're self-taught; life isn't a meritocracy. If you're very good, you'll end up getting a nice cushy job pushing ones and zeros. A nice cushy golden handcuff job. Well, you could go to community college. They're certainly cheap. You can spend very little money so you'll end up with fairly good freedom. I might add, though, that community colleges teach trades, and not high-level things like management and complex architecture. You'll be behind technically, but not as bad as if you didn't go at all. How about connections? Your fellow students will probably lack ambition, money, and connections. They'll be candidates for entry-level wage slave jobs at Fortune 500 companies after they graduate. If they get lucky, they'll work up to middle management. There's no alumni association, and there's certainly no "DeVry Club" in downtown Boston. At New York and Silicon Valley dinner parties, having a community college degree is almost as bad as having nothing at all. Indeed, the entire value of the community college degree will be what you learn, and you'll be learning at the speed and level of your classmates. My advice? If you get into an Ivy League school, go and hope you get some grants to help you out. The debt will suck, but you'll be well positioned for the future. Otherwise, go to a cheap second-tier school where you can get a large scholarship. There are also lots of third-party scholarships that are out there on the Internet you can get. I got a couple from local organizations. Don't work during college. Focus on expanding your network instead; the future value of a minimum wage job while you're trying to go through school is practically zero. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> How will I pay for college? [/INST] One potentially useful option to avoid the crippling tuition fees in the states is to instead get your degree abroad. Numerous European countries have very low tuition fees, even for international students. Tuition can be as low as a 1000 EUR and housing is generally also very affordable. There is of course the language barrier but many universities are oriented towards receiving international students, providing relocation assistance and offering courses in English. As a bonus, most Europeans speak excellent English and are generally quite happy to practice it so you shouldn't have any problems off-campus either. Going to the UK is an option but likely considerably more expensive than colleges in mainland Europe. This article, while written for a Nigerian audience, lists some of the most attractive options for the international student. The quality of the education is also generally very high for these colleges. As an example Belgium, one of the cheapest options in the list, has two universities ranked in the Top 100: Leuven and Ghent. Many other German, French, Dutch or Scandinavian universities figure in that list. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> How will I pay for college? [/INST] There are some useful comments about the tradeoffs of the decisions in front of you. Intertwined with the financial choices, hopefully you can see a map opening up. Make a little chart if it helps. Benefit and Cost. If you're looking for financial options, you will have to also add more columns to that chart: Option and Cost. An example is the comment on making connections with rich kids. Trust fund babies are everywhere in this country. Did you know any rich kids while growing up? How were those rich kids you knew of back then... in your school... in your town? How did they treat you? Were you ever invited to their parties or gatherings? Now there's an opportunity for the privilege to pay a lot of money to sit in a classroom next to them? Even in the early days of American history with merit based millionaires... tycoons who made it rich by the seat of their pants. At fancy dinner parties and soirees, a new term emerged to put each other again out of reach: old money (the deserving) and new money (uncultured climbers). That's my bias. You'll have some of your own. What is important to YOU has to come through because these days, the price tag of any higher education implies a considerable piece of your life's timeline will be committed to... something. Make sure you get what you feel is worth that commitment. Take stock of what has been said here by the others, but put a value on those choices and seriously consider what you're willing to pay for... and what you're not. There is no formula for your success as there's been thousands of exceptions... ESID (Every Situation is Different). </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> What are futures and how are they different from options? [/INST] Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> What are futures and how are they different from options? [/INST] For futures, you are obligated to puchase the security at $x when the contract expires. For an option, you have the right or option to do so if it's favorable to you. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> How exactly do dividend reinvestment plans (DRIPs) work? [/INST] I think Wikipedia offers a very good explanation: A dividend reinvestment program or dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP) is an equity investment option offered directly from the underlying company. The investor does not receive quarterly dividends directly as cash; instead, the investor's dividends are directly reinvested in the underlying equity. The investor must still pay tax annually on his or her dividend income, whether it is received or reinvested. This allows the investment return from dividends to be immediately invested for the purpose of price appreciation and compounding, without incurring brokerage fees or waiting to accumulate enough cash for a full share of stock. So essentially, a dividend reinvestment plan is offered by companies directly, allowing investors to bypass brokerages, and immediately re-invests dividends rather than paying them out in cash. Investopedia also gives a straighforward definition: A plan offered by a corporation that allows investors to reinvest their cash dividends by purchasing additional shares or fractional shares on the dividend payment date. A DRIP is an excellent way to increase the value of your investment. Most DRIPs allow you to buy shares commission free and at a significant discount to the current share price. Most DRIPS don't allow reinvestments much lower than $10. I had a hard time finding a comprehensive listing of companies that offered DRPs (or DRIPs), but MyDollarPlan.com offers these suggestions: Finding a Dividend Reinvestment Plan: Computershare offers one-stop shopping for hundreds of dividend reinvestment plans. They offer a searchable list that can be filtered to easily find a dividend reinvestment plan that fits your needs. You can also use OneShare. Probably the best way to find out if a company offers a dividend reinvestment plan is to visit the company website. Most companies have an Investor Relations area that will highlight the various options available to shareowners. For example: Coca-Cola, Disney, and Wal-Mart. Hope this helps! @YMCbuzz </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Should I talk about my stocks? [/INST] I like your question and think it is a pretty good one. Generally speaking I would not suggest talking about your stock picks or wealth. Here is why: 1) Most people are broke. Seventy-eight percent of the US population report living paycheck to paycheck. More than a majority do not have enough in savings to cover a $500 repair to a car or dryer. What kind of money advice will you get from broke people (the general population)? Answer: Bad. 2) It targets you for jealousy/negative feelings. If you discuss this kind of thing with your broke friends they will have negative feelings toward you. This is not necessarily a bad thing. If you want to build wealth a aspect of that is having wealthy friends. They will have the kind of disposable income to do the kinds of things you want to do. They can alert you to good investment opportunities. And your income will tend to increase. Most people's income resides within 10% of their 10 closest friends. 3) You can be targeted for law suits. Given that personal injury attorneys work on contingent, they are very good at picking on defendants with deep pockets or really good insurance. Knowing that you have significant investments will put a bit of a target on your back. Having said all of that, you could participate in groups with a similar interest in investing. Back in the late 80's investment clubs were all the rage, and you might be able to find one of those online or at the local library or something. That would be a far safer. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Should I talk about my stocks? [/INST] No, there is no significant harm to discussing this. Outside of possibly getting bad advice, excessive advice, or complaints that others just aren't interested... </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> How much should I be contributing to my 401k given my employer's contribution? [/INST] JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> How much should I be contributing to my 401k given my employer's contribution? [/INST] You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split). </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> How much should I be contributing to my 401k given my employer's contribution? [/INST] For your first question, the general guidelines I've seen recommended are as follows: As to your second question, portfolio management is something you should familiarize yourself with. If you trust it to other people, don't be surprised when they make "mistakes". Remember, they get paid regardless of whether you make money. Consider how much any degree of risk will affect you. When starting out, your contributions make up most of the growth of your accounts; now is the time when you can most afford to take higher risk for higher payouts (still limiting your risk as much as possible, of course). A 10% loss on a portfolio of $50k can be replaced with a good year's contributions. Once your portfolio has grown to a much larger sum, it will be time to dial back the risk and focus on preserving your capital. When choosing investments, always treat your porfolio as a whole - including non-retirement assets (other investment accounts, savings, even your house). Don't put too many eggs from every account into the same basket, or you'll find that 30% of your porfolio is a single investment. Also consider that some investments have different tax consequences, and you can leverage the properties of each account to offset that. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> How much should I be contributing to my 401k given my employer's contribution? [/INST] First - yes, take the 2.5%. It could be better, but it's better than many get. Second - choosing from "a bunch" can be tough. Start by looking at the expenses for each. Read a bit of the description, if you can't tell your spouse what the fund's goal is, don't buy it. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> How much should I be contributing to my 401k given my employer's contribution? [/INST] Contribute as much as you can. When do you want to retire and how much income do you think you'll need? A $1M portfolio yielding 5% will yield $50,000/year. Do some research about how to build a portfolio... this site is a good start, but check out books on retirement planning and magazines like Money and Kiplinger. If you don't speak "money" or are intimidated by investing, look for a fee-based financial advisor whom you are comfortable with. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Can a company control its stock through contracts with stockholders? [/INST] Your first scenario, involving shareholders in a private corp being limited by a contractual agreement, is common in practice. Frequent clauses include methods of valuing the shares if someone wants to sell, first right of refusal [you have to attempt to sell to the other shareholders, before you can sell to a 3rd party], and many others. These clauses are governed by contract law [ie: some clauses may be illegal in contract law, and therefore couldn't be applied here]. A Universal Shareholders' Agreement is just the same as the above, but applied to more people. You would never get an already public company to convert to a universal shareholders' agreement - because even 1 share voting 'no' would block it [due to corporate law limiting the power of a corporation from abusing minority shareholder value]. In practice, these agreements universally exist at the start of incorporation, or at least at the first moment shares become available. An example is the Canadian mega-construction company PCL*, which is employee-owned. When the original owner transferred the corporation to his employees, there was a USA in place which still today governs how the corporation operates. In theory you could have a 'public company' where most shares are already owned by the founders, and 100% of remaining shares are owned by a specific group of individuals, in which case you may be able to get a USA signed. But it wouldn't really happen in practice. *[Note that while PCL is broadly owned by a large group of employees, it is not a 'public company' because any random schmuck can't simply buy a share on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I assume most exchanges would prevent corporations from being listed if they had ownership restrictions like this]. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Should I move my money market funds into bonds? [/INST] It depends how much risk you're prepared to accept. The short-term risk-free rate of return at present is something in the vicinity of 0.1% (three month US treasuries are currently yielding 0.08%), so anything paying a higher rate on money that's accessible quickly will involve some degree of risk -- the higher the rate then the higher the risk. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Should I move my money market funds into bonds? [/INST] One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Should I move my money market funds into bonds? [/INST] If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider moving them into an online saving account. You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible. Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks). If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be. Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio. It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments. If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate. Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Should I move my money market funds into bonds? [/INST] How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss. On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Should I move my money market funds into bonds? [/INST] Your only real alternative is something like T-Bills via your broker or TreasuryDirect or short-term bond funds like the Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Fund. The problem with this strategy is that these options are different animals than a money market. You're either going to subject yourself to principal risk or lose the flexibility of withdrawing the money. A better strategy IMO is to look at your overall portfolio and what you actually want. If you have $100k in a money market, and you are not going to need $100k in cash for the forseeable future -- you are "paying" (via the low yield) for flexibility that you don't need. If get your money into an appropriately diversified portfolio, you'll end up with a more optimal return. If the money involved is relatively small, doing nothing is a real option as well. $5,000 at 0.5% yields $25, and a 5% return yields only $250. If you need that money soon to pay tuition, use for living expenses, etc, it's not worth the trouble. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Should I move my money market funds into bonds? [/INST] There is a thing called the Sharpe Ratio. This Ratio takes return/risk with risk being defined as the standard deviation of prices over time. According to Financial theory the investment with the highest (best) Sharpe Ratio is a market portfolio. Technically accepting the lower risk of a treasury is accepting an amplified lower return(market sharpe would be 1 than tbill sharpe would be at most .9999999999999). Because of this, unless there are liquidity restraints (don't buy ETFs with your payroll money DUH) you should ALWAYS be in market funds, otherwise you are leaving money on the table. Everything else is just speculation. Now the real question is value or growth....... </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Whole life insurance - capped earnings [/INST] The question that I walk away with is "What is the cost of the downside protection?" Disclaimer - I don't sell anything. I am not a fan of insurance as an investment, with rare exceptions. (I'll stop there, all else is a tangent) There's an appeal to looking at the distribution of stock returns. It looks a bit like a bell curve, with a median at 10% or so, and a standard deviation of 15 or so. This implies that there are some number of years on average that the market will be down, and others, about 2/3, up. Now, you wish to purchase a way of avoiding that negative return, and need to ask yourself what it's worth to do so. The insurance company tells you (a) 2% off the top, i.e. no dividends and (b) we will clip the high end, over 9.5%. I then am compelled to look at the numbers. Knowing that your product can't be bought and sold every year, it's appropriate to look at 10-yr rolling returns. The annual returns I see, and the return you'd have in any period. I start with 1900-2012. I see an average 9.8% with STD of 5.3%. Remember, the 10 year rolling will do a good job pushing the STD down. The return the Insurance would give you is an average 5.4%, with STD of .01. You've bought your way out of all risk, but at what cost? From 1900-2012, my dollar grows to $30080, yours, to $406. For much of the time, treasuries were higher than your return. Much higher. It's interesting to see how often the market is over 10% for the year, clip too many of those and you really lose out. From 1900-2012, I count 31 negative years (ouch) but 64 years over 9.5%. The 31 averaged -13.5%, the 64, 25.3%. The illusion of "market gains" is how this product is sold. Long term, they lag safe treasuries. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Whole life insurance - capped earnings [/INST] Pretty simple: When is Cash Value Life Insurance a good or bad idea? It is never a good idea. How can life insurance possibly work as investment? It can't. Just as car, home, or health insurance is not an investment. Note for counter example providers: intent to commit insurance fraud is not an investment. Why not live your life so in 15 or 20 years you are debt free, have a nice emergency fund built and have a few 100 thousand in investments? Then you can self-insure. If you die with a paid off home, no debt, 20K in a money market, and 550,000 in retirement accounts would your spouse and children be taken care of? </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Whole life insurance - capped earnings [/INST] I need to see the policy you are referring to give a more accurate answer. However what could be happening, it’s again the way these instruments are structured; For example if the insurance premium is say 11,000 of which 1000 is toward expenses and Term insurance amount. The Balance 10,000 is invested in growth. The promise is that this will grow max of 9.5% and never below zero. IE say if we are talking only about a year, you can get anything between 10,000 to 10,950. The S & P long-term average return is in the range of 12 -15% [i don't remember correctly] So the company by capping it at 9.5% is on average basis making a profit of 2.5% to 5.5%. IE in a good year say the S & P return is around 18%, the company has pocketed close to 9% more money; On a bad year say the Index gave a -ve return of say 5% ... The Insurance company would take this loss out of the good years. If say when your policy at the S & P for that year has given poor returns, you would automatically get less returns. Typically one enters into Life Insurance on a long term horizon and hence the long term averages should be used as a better reference, and going by that, one would make more money just by investing this in an Index directly. As you whether you want to invest in such a scheme, should be your judgment, in my opinion I prefer to stay away from things that are not transparent. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> How are startup shares worth more than the total investment funding? [/INST] What littleadv said is correct. His worth is based on the presumed worth of the total company value (which is much greater than all investment dollars combined because of valuation growth)*. In other words, his "worth" is based on the potential return for his share of ownership at a rate based on the latest valuation of the company. He is worth $17.5 billion today, but the total funding for Facebook is only $2.4 billion? I don't understand this. In private companies, valuations typically come from either speculation/analysts or from investments. Investment valuations are the better gauge, because actual money traded hands for a percentage ownership. However, just as with public companies on the stock market, there are (at least) two caveats. Just because someone else sold their shares at a given rate, doesn't mean that rate... In both cases, it's possible the value may be much lower or much higher. Some high-value purchases surprise for how high they are, such as Microsoft's acquisition of Skype for $8.5 billion. The formula for one owner's "worth" based on a given acquisition is: Valuation = Acquisition amount / Acquisition percent Worth = Owner's percent × Valuation According to Wikipedia Zuckerberg owns 24%. In January, Goldman Sach's invested $500 million at a $50 billion valuation. That is the latest investment and puts Zuckerberg's worth at $12 billion. However, some speculation places a Facebook IPO at a much higher valuation, such as as $100 billion. I don't know what your reference is for $17 billion, but it puts their valuation at $70.8 billion, between the January Goldman valuation and current IPO speculation. * For instance, Eduardo Saverin originally invested $10,000, which, at his estimated 5% ownership, would now be worth $3-5 billion. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> How are startup shares worth more than the total investment funding? [/INST] The net worth is based on an estimate of how much he would get if he relinquished his stake. The total funding is based on how much he has relinquished thus far. Suppose I have a candy jar with 100 candies. I'm not sure how much these candies are worth, so I start off by selling 10% of the jar for $10. Now I have 90 candies and $10, a total value of $100. Then someone comes along offering $100 for another 10% (of the original jar, or 10 candies), which I accept. Now I have 80 candies and $110. Since I value each candy at $10 now, I calculate my worth as $910. Then I do another deal selling 10% for $1000. Now I have $1110 in cash and 70 candies valued at $100 each. My total worth is now $8110 (cash + remaining candies), while the candy jar has only received $1110 in funding. Replace candies with equity in The Facebook, Inc. and you get the idea. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> How are startup shares worth more than the total investment funding? [/INST] He is worth $17.5 billion today Note that he is worth that dollar figure, but he doesn't have that many dollars. That's the worth of his stake in the company (number of shares he owns times the assumed value per share), i.e. assuming its total value being several hundreds of billions, as pundits assume. However, it is not a publicly traded company, so we don't really know much about its financials. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Is it better to buy put options or buy an inverse leveraged ETF? [/INST] You don't have to think it is going down, it is currently trending down as on a weekly chart there are lower lows and lower highs. Until there is a higher low with confirmation of a higher high, the downtrend will continue. The instrument you use to profit from a market drop depends on your risk profile, the time frame you are looking at, and your trading plan and risk management. With a put option your loss is limited to your initial premium and your potential profits can be quite large compared to the premium paid, however your timeframe is limited to the expiry of the option. You could buy a longer dated option but this will cost more in the premium you pay. With inverse ETF you are not restricted by an expiry date, but if you don't have appropriate risk management in place your potential losses can be large. With a leveraged inverse ETF again you are not restricted by an expiry date, you can potentially make higher percentage profits than with an standard ETF. but once again your losses can be very large (larger than you initial investment) if you don't have appropriate risk management in place. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Is it better to buy put options or buy an inverse leveraged ETF? [/INST] Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are. By "better" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put. If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more. Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices. But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor. A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage. The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required. Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above. The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward. You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky. On par with the inverse ETFs. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Is it better to buy put options or buy an inverse leveraged ETF? [/INST] The only use of options that I will endorse is selling them. If you believe the market is going down then sell covered, out of the money, calls. Buying calls or buying puts usually wastes money. That is because of a quality called Theta. If the underlying security stays the same the going price of an option will decrease, every day, by the Theta amount. Think of options as insurance. A person only makes money by selling insurance, not by buying it. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Rationale behind using 12, 26 and 9 to calculate MACD [/INST] The values of 12, 26 and 9 are the typical industry standard setting used with the MACD, however other values can be substituted depending on your trading style and goals. The 26d EMA is considered the long moving average when in this case it is compared to the shorter 12d EMA. If you used a 5d EMA and a 10d EMA then the 10d EMA would be considered the long MA. It is based on what you are comparing it with. Apart from providing signals for a reversal in trend, MACD can also be used as an early indication to a possible end to a trend. What you look out for is divergence between the price and the MACD. See chart below of an example: Here I have used 10d & 3d EMAs and 1 for the signal (as I did not want the signal to show up). I am simply using the MACD as a momentum indicator - which work by providing higher highs in the MACD with higher highs in price. This shows that the momentum in the trend is good so the trend should continue. However the last high in price is not met with a higher high in the MACD. The green lines demonstrate bearish divergence between price and the MACD, which is an indication that the momentum of the trend is slowing down. This could provide forewarning that the trend may be about to end and to take caution - i.e. not a good time to be buying this stock or if you already own it you may want to tighten up your stop loss. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Interest payments for leveraged positions [/INST] I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a "margin call" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> How much principal do I get back with a target-maturity ETF? [/INST] Adding a couple more assumptions, I'd compute about $18.23 would be that pay out in 2018. This is computed by taking the Current Portfolio's Holdings par values and dividing by the outstanding shares(92987/5100 for those wanting specific figures used). Now, for those assumptions: Something to keep in mind is that bonds can valued higher than their face value if the coupon is higher than other issues given the same risk. If you have 2 bonds maturing in 3 years of the same face value and same risk categories though one is paying 5% and the other is paying 10% then it may be that the 5% sells at a discount to bring the yield up some while the other sells at a premium to bring the yield down. Thus, you could have bonds worth more before they mature that will eventually lose this capital appreciation. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Receiving partial payment of overseas loan/company purchase? [/INST] Is it equity, or debt? Understanding the exact nature of one's investment (equity vs. debt) is critical. When one invests money in a company (presumably incorporated or limited) by buying some or all of it — as opposed to lending money to the company — then one ends up owning equity (shares or stock) in the company. In such a situation, one is a shareholder — not a creditor. As a shareholder, one is not generally owed a money debt just by having acquired an ownership stake in the company. Shareholders with company equity generally don't get to treat money received from the company as repayment of a loan — unless they also made a loan to the company and the payment is designated by the company as a loan repayment. Rather, shareholders can receive cash from a company through one of the following sources: "Loan repayment" isn't one of those options; it's only an option if one made a loan in the first place. Anyway, each of those ways of receiving money based on one's shares in a company has distinct tax implications, not just for the shareholder but for the company as well. You should consult with a tax professional about the most effective way for you to repatriate money from your investment. Considering the company is established overseas, you may want to find somebody with the appropriate expertise. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Why is the bid-ask spread considered a cost? [/INST] Your assets are marked to market. If you buy at X, and the market is bidding at 99.9% * X then you've already lost 0.1%. This is a market value oriented way of looking at costs. You could always value your assets with mark to model, and maybe you do, but no one else will. Just because you think the stock is worth 2*X doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees, evidenced by the bid. You surely won't get any margin loans based upon mark to model. Your bankers won't be convinced of the valuation of your assets based upon mark to model. By strictly a market value oriented way of valuing assets, there is a bid/ask cost. more clarification Relative to littleadv, this is actually a good exposition between the differences between cash and accrual accounting. littleadv is focusing completely on the cash cost of the asset at the time of transaction and saying that there is no bid/ask cost. Through the lens of cash accounting, that is 100% correct. However, if one uses accrual accounting marking assets to market (as we all do with marketable assets like stocks, bonds, options, etc), there may be a bid/ask cost. At the time of transaction, the bids used to trade (one's own) are exhausted. According to exchange rules that are now practically uniform: the highest bid is given priority, and if two bids are bidding the exact same highest price then the oldest bid is given priority; therefore the oldest highest bid has been exhausted and removed at trade. At the time of transaction, the value of the asset cannot be one's own bid but the highest oldest bid leftover. If that highest oldest bid is lower than the price paid (even with liquid stocks this is usually the case) then one has accrued a bid/ask cost. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Why is the bid-ask spread considered a cost? [/INST] This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your "bid") is the same price someone else sells (their "sell"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Why is the bid-ask spread considered a cost? [/INST] As an aside, on most securities with a spread of the minimum tick, there would be no bid ask spread if so-called "locked markets", where the price of the best bid on one exchange is equal to the price of the best ask on another, were permitted. It is currently forbidden for a security to have posted orders having the same price for both bid and ask even though they're on different exchanges. Option spreads would narrow as well as a result. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> What to do with south african currency free fall [/INST] Use other currencies, if available. I'm not familiar with the banking system in South Africa; if they haven't placed any currency freezes or restrictions, you might want to do this sooner than later. In full crises, like Russian and Ukraine, once the crisis worsened, they started limiting purchases of foreign currencies. PayPal might allow currency swaps (it implies that it does at the bottom of this page); if not, I know Uphold does. Short the currency Brokerage in the US allow us to short the US Dollar. If banks allow you to short the ZAR, you can always use that for protection. I looked at the interest rates in the ZAR to see how the central bank is offsetting this currency crisis - WOW - I'd be running, not walking toward the nearest exit. A USA analogy during the late 70s/early 80s would be Paul Volcker holding interest rates at 2.5%, thinking that would contain 10% inflation. Bitcoin Comes with significant risks itself, but if you use it as a temporary medium of exchange for swaps - like Uphold or with some bitcoin exchanges like BTC-e - you can get other currencies by converting to bitcoin then swapping for other assets. Bitcoin's strength is remitting and swapping; holding on to it is high risk. Commodities I think these are higher risk right now as part of the ZAR's problem is that it's heavily reliant on commodities. I looked at your stock market to see how well it's done, and I also see that it's done poorly too and I think the commodity bloodbath has something to do with that. If you know of any commodity that can stay stable during uncertainty, like food that doesn't expire, you can at least buy without worrying about costs rising in the future. I always joke that if hyperinflation happened in the United States, everyone would wish they lived in Utah. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> What to do with south african currency free fall [/INST] Transfer your savings to a dollar-based CD. Or even better, buy some gold on them. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Over how much time should I dollar-cost-average my bonus from cash into mutual funds? [/INST] The OP invests a large amount of money each year (30-40k), and has significant amount already invested. Some in the United States that face this situation may want to look at using the bonus to fund two years worth of IRA or Roth IRA. During the period between January 1st and tax day they can put money into a IRA or Roth IRA for the previous year, and for the current year. The two deposits might have to be made separately, because the tax year for each deposit must be specified. If the individual is married, they can also fund their spouses IRA or Roth IRA. If this bonus is this large every year, the double deposit can only be done the first time, but if the windfall was unexpected getting the previous years deposit done before tax day could be useful. The deposits for the current year could still be spread out over the next 12 months. EDIT: Having thought about the issue a little more I have realized there are other timing issues that need to be considered. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Over how much time should I dollar-cost-average my bonus from cash into mutual funds? [/INST] There have been studies which show that Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) underperforms Lump Sum Investing (LSI). Vanguard, in particular, has published one such study. Of course, reading about advice in a study is one thing; acting on that advice can be something else entirely. We rolled over my wife's 401(k) to an IRA back in early 2007 and just did it as a lump sum. You know what happened after that. But our horizon was 25+ years at that time, so we didn't lose too much sleep over it (we haven't sold or gone to cash, either). </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Over how much time should I dollar-cost-average my bonus from cash into mutual funds? [/INST] I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes? 3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Over how much time should I dollar-cost-average my bonus from cash into mutual funds? [/INST] Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Is there any data that shows how diversifying results in better returns than just sticking to an all-stock portfolio? [/INST] This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods. You can see the figures in the PDF. These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time. The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that "under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here. I read your question as asking "is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio". There is some such data. However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides. You're unlikely to find data that "proves" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds. For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing. It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper. The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> How some mutual funds pay such high dividends [/INST] Look at their dividend history. The chart there is simply reporting the most recent dividend (or a recent time period, in any event). GF for example: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gf/dividend-history It's had basically two significant dividends and a bunch of small dividends. Past performance is not indicative of future returns and all that. It might never have a similar dividend again. What you're basically looking at with that chart is a list of recently well-performing funds - funds who had a good year. They obviously may or may not have such a good year next year. You also have funds that are dividend-heavy (intended explicitly to return significant dividends). Those may return large dividends, but could still fall in value significantly. Look at ACP for example: it's currently trading near it's 2-year low. You got a nice dividend, but the price dropped quite a bit, so you lost a chunk of that money. (I don't know if ACP is a dividend-heavy fund, but it looks like it might be.) GF's chart is also indicative of something interesting: it fell off a cliff right after it gave its dividend (at the end of the year). Dropped $4. I think that's because this is a mutual fund priced based on the NAV of its holdings - so it dividended some of those holdings, which dropped the share price (and the NAV of the fund) by that amount. IE, $18 a share, $4 a share dividend, so after that $14 a share. (The rest of the dividends are from stock holdings which pay dividends themselves, if I understand properly). Has a similar drop in Dec 2013. They may simply be trying to keep the price of the fund in the ~$15 a share range; I suspect (but don't know) that some funds have in their charter a requirement to stay in a particular range and dividend excess value. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> 401K - shift from agressive investment to Money Market [/INST] If you look at history, it shows that the more people predict corrections the less was the chance they came. That doesn't prove it stays so, though. 2017 is not any different than other years in the future: Independent of this, with less than ten years remaining until you need to draw from your money, it is a good idea to move away from high risk (and high gain); you will not have enough time to recover if it goes awry. There are different approaches, but you should slowly and continuously migrate your capital to less risky investments. Pick some good days and move 10% or 20% each time to low-risk, so that towards the end of the remaining time 90 or 100% are low or zero risk investments. Many investment banks and retirement funds offer dedicated funds for that, they are called 'Retirement 2020' or 'Retirement 2030'; they do exactly this 'slow and continuous moving over' for you; just pick the right one. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> 401K - shift from agressive investment to Money Market [/INST] I can understand your fears, and there is nothing wrong with taking action to protect yourself from them. How much income do you need in retirement? For arguments sake, lets say you need to pull 36K per year from your 401K or 3K per month. Lets also assume that you current contribute (with any match) 1,000 per month. Please adjust to your actual numbers accordingly. One option would be to pull out 48K right now and put it in a money market. With your contributions, I would then put half into the money market and half into more aggressive investments. In 10 years, you would have about 110K in your money market account. You could live off of that for three years. If the market does crash, this should give you plenty of time to recover. Taking this option opens you to another risk, which is being beat up by inflation or lack of growth on a nice pile of cash. My time frame is not that different then yours (I am about 12 years away), but am still all in stocks. Having 48K and more with not opportunity for growth frightens me more than any temporary stock market crash. Having said that I think it would be a horrible mistake to get completely out of stocks. Many of those destroyed in 2008 also missed 2012 through 2014 which were awesome years. So do some. Set aside a year or three of income in something nice and safe. Maybe one year of income in money market, one in bonds and preferred stocks, and one in blue chips. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Good books for learning about tax strategy/planning [/INST] Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money. What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Good books for learning about tax strategy/planning [/INST] J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax is, remarkably, a great read. It's a line by line review of the tax forms, and offers commentary and examples for every scenario. Of course, it's updated every year to reflect new rules and numbers. I actually read it from cover to cover the first year I started working. It's not going to offer convoluted strategies to use, but, you'll understand your tax return well enough to respond to the advice you encounter elsewhere. To mhoran's point - "Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog." Taxes are important, but should take a back step to earning and investing. Those who didn't sell at the height of the dotcon bubble "to avoid the big tax bill" only saw in hindsight that paying taxes is part of success not failure. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Are warehouse clubs like Costco and Sam's Club worth it? [/INST] We were members at costco, but decided not to renew. Meat was a definite cost savings, and laundry detergent as well. Diapers used to be a huge savings, but loblaws seems to be pricing things better now. We did by a bunch of Kirkland brand diapers and wipes before the membership ended. The problem we had was that you just get too much stuff - you save a bunch on that laundry detergent that you buy once every two years, or the chicken you have in your freezer forever. In Canada, the basic membership is $55 and we could not be certain we made that back, nor that we weren't over consuming as we walked the aisles. I have heard that the more expensive membership ($100) which gives you 2% back on purchases is a good way to gauge your usage and determine if it is worth it. It also costs nothing to give it a try - their policy is a full refund at any time, so in theory you could go in on your 364th day and get a refund. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Are warehouse clubs like Costco and Sam's Club worth it? [/INST] I know that for me personally, if I buy that giant box of Goldfish instead of the bags, it doesn't mean I'm saving money... just eating a lot more Goldfish. The trick, I think, to buying in bulk is to make sure that you're not consuming in bulk. You're not likely to go through more dishwasher detergent just because you bought the big bottle, but you may find the kids are eating a lot more fruit snacks, or you're throwing away half of that huge bag of baby carrots that went bad, because you bought in bulk. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Are warehouse clubs like Costco and Sam's Club worth it? [/INST] Whether or not they are worth it depends entirely on your situation. For my family, they are worth it, but I know a number of people who it would not be worthwhile for. The big things that we find are cheaper to get at bulk stores are toiletries, detergents (laundry, dishwasher), meats (only if you have a big freezer), bread, and certain types of prepackaged foods. Right now, it's just my wife and me, but once we have kids it will become even more worthwhile with things like diapers, wipes, and various other items. If you have a large family, or a large freezer odds are they are worth it. One thing to be careful of however is that they usually don't accept coupons. So if you're a big time deal shopper the gain may be minimal. They only cost $40 a year, so worst case scenario if you don't get back your full investment you're not out too much. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Are warehouse clubs like Costco and Sam's Club worth it? [/INST] Also don't just assume that everything that Costco or Sams (we use Costco) sells is cheaper. Still shop around and look for the best price. For us it is definitely worth it. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Are warehouse clubs like Costco and Sam's Club worth it? [/INST] Only select items. First - I agree, beware the Goldfish Factor - any of those items may very well lead to greater consumption, which will impact your waistline worse than your bottom line. And, in this category, chips, and snacks in general, you'll typically get twice the size bag for the same price as supermarket. For a large family, this might work ok. If one is interested in saving on grocery items, the very first step is to get familiar with the unit cost (often cents per ounce) of most items you buy. Warehouse store or not, this knowledge will make you a better buyer. In general, the papergoods/toiletries are cheaper than at the store but not as cheap as the big sale/coupon cost at the supermarket or pharmacy (CVS/RiteAid). So if you pay attention you may always be stocked up from other sources. All that said, there are many items that easily cover our membership cost (for Costco). The meat, beef tenderloin, $8.99, I can pay up to $18 at the supermarket or butcher. Big shrimp (12 to the lb), $9.50/lb, easily $15 at fish dept. Funny, I buy the carrots JCarter mentioned. They are less than half supermarket price per lb, so I am ahead if we throw out the last 1/4 of the bag. More often than not, it's used up 100%. Truth is, everyone will have a different experience at these stores. Costco will refund membership up to the very end, so why not try it, and see if the visit is worth it? Last year, I read and wrote a review of a book titled The Paradox of Choice. The book's premise was the diminishing return that come with too many things to choose from. In my review, I observed how a benefit of Costco is the lack of choice, there's one or two brands for most items, not dozens. If you give this a bit of thought, it's actually a benefit. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Are warehouse clubs like Costco and Sam's Club worth it? [/INST] I'm guessing it depends on how much you'd be paying for membership. If you save more than the membership costs you and you actually use the products you buy and they don't get thrown away, then it's worth it. I'm not a member of a warehouse club but I do have a membership for another wholesale outlet, so I know a little bit about buying in bulk. You need to take the same approach to buying goods wholesale as you would in an ordinary outlet, and do a few more things besides. Things like writing a list and sticking to it, making that list logically, so that you minimise the amount of time you spend walking around the shop. The less you see, the less you are likely to buy. Don't be taken in by offers, it's only a bargain if it's something you would have bought anyway. Don't shop on an empty stomach or with you children. And with bulk buying, you have to stick to things with long dates, unless your family gets through something at a phenomenal rate. Things like pet food are good, sugar too if you do a lot of home baking, that kind of thing. Toilet paper and kitchen roll are great to buy in bulk if you have the storage space and toothbrushes are good too. You'll always need them, always need to replace them, they don't take up much space and don't have a use by. The rules differ from family to family. Look at what your family uses and how much time it takes to get through something. That's the best place to start. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Are warehouse clubs like Costco and Sam's Club worth it? [/INST] Silly as it sounds, we belong to both BJ's and Sam's club (we don't have Costco in this area). The produce at our local Sam's is top-notch, especially in the winter. The prices on fruit there are unbeatable in the winter time, and more than cover the membership cost. I also find the price/quality of canned/box grocery items like tomatoes, flour, etc is better than our supermarkets. Our local BJ's has an excellent meat department, and we tend to buy alot of non-perishable groceries like ketchup, cheese, etc as well as soap/cleaning stuff because they accept coupons. They are closer to my home and also have a member-only gas pump that is $0.10-0.30 cheaper. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Costs around a modern crowd-sourced hedge fund [/INST] Your inference in #1 is incorrect. The million dollars he has contributed is going to be part of the assets of the fund. This is common practice and is a way for the founder to express confidence that the fund will make money. He wants you to come up with a model that he can then use to trade those assets. Presumably he will give you some money if he uses your model and it works. Regarding #2, there are lots of ways of getting data. Sometimes you can buy it directly from the exchange. You can also buy from vendors like tickdata.com. There are lots of such vendors. Since he makes a big deal about saying it's expensive, I'm assuming he is talking about data at relatively high frequency (not daily, which would be cheap). Stock data is still not bad. Complete US data would be a few thousand dollars (maybe 20K at the most). For someone sitting at home with no capital, that's a lot of money, but for a hedge fund it's nothing. As an institutional investor, your broker will give you a data feed that will provide all prices in real time (but not historically). If he's been in operation a while, he could have just saved the prices as they came out of the pipe. I don't think that's the case here, though, based on how young he is and how little money is involved. In short, he paid for some data and has "encrypted" it in such a way that he can legally share it for free. Supposedly his method preserves the structure so that you could write a trading model based on the encrypted data and it would work on real data. Once you have a good trading model, you sell it to him and he will use it to trade his million dollars and whatever other money he is able to gather. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> How is initial stock price (IPO) of a stock determined [/INST] Who determines company value at IPO? The Owners based on the advice from Lead Bankers and other Independent auditors who would determine the value of the company at the time of listing. At times instead of determining a fixed price a range is given [lower side and higher side]. The Market participants [FI / Institutional Investor Segments] then decide the price by bidding at an amount. There are multiple aspects in play that help stabalize the IPO and roles of various parties. A quick read of question with IPO tag is recommended Edits: Generally at a very broad level, one of the key purpose of the IPO is to either encash Owner equity [Owner wants some profits immediately] or Raise additional Capital. More often it is a mix of both. If the price is too low, one loose out on getting the true value, this would go to someone else. If the price is too high, then it may not attract enough buyers or even there are buyers, there is substantial -ve sentiment. This is not good for the company. Read the question From Facebook's perspective, was the fall in price after IPO actually an indication that it went well? This puts determining the price of IPO more in the realm of art than science. There are various mechanism [Lead bankers, Institutional Investors, Underwriters] the a company would put in place to ensure the IPO is success and that itself would moderate the price to realistic level. More often the price is kept slightly lower to create a positive buzz about the stock. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Money transfer from India to USA [/INST] We have a house here in India worth Rs. 2 Crores. We want to sell it and take money with us. Selling the house in India will attract Capital Gains Tax. Essentially the price at which you sell the property less of the property was purchased [or deemed value when inherited by you]. The difference is Capital Gains. You have to pay tax on this gains. This is currently at 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. Please note if you hold these funds for more than an year, you would additionally be liable for Wealth tax at 1% above Rs 50 lacs. Can I gift this whole amount to my US Citizen Daughter or what is the maximum limit of Gift amount What will be the tax liability on me and on my Daughter in case of Gift Whether I have to show it in my Income Tax Return or in my Daughter's Tax Return. What US Income Tax Laws says. What will be the procedure to send money as Gift to my Daughter. Assuming you are still Indian citizen when to gift the funds; From Indian tax point of you there is no tax to you. As you daughter is US citizen, there is no gift tax to her. There is no limit in India or US. So you can effectively gift the entire amount without any taxes. If you transfer this after you become a US Resident [for tax purposes], then there is a limit of USD 14,000/- per year per recipient. Effective you can gift your daughter and son-in-law 14,000/- ea and your husband can do the same. Net 14,000 * 4 USD per year. Beyond this you either pay tax or declare this and deduct it from life time estate quota. Again there is no tax for your daughter. What are the routes to take money from India to US Will the money will go directly from my Bank Act.to my Daughter's Bank Account. Will there will be wire transfer from bank to bank Can I send money through other money sender Certified Companies also. The best way is via Bank to Bank transfer. A CA Certificate is required to certify that taxes have been paid on this funds being transferred. Under the liberalized remittance scheme in India, there is a limit of USD 1 Million per year for moving funds outside of India. So you can move around Rs 6-7 Crore a year. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Money transfer from India to USA [/INST] The liabilities are the same regardless of the route, besides tax evasion schemes such as handing the money to her as cash. Taxes will run up to half of the amount. The best routes are: Western union, moneygram, and similar services- about 2k You are allowed to gift 14k tax free. You can increase this amount by sending to multiple trusted people. See here. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Tax-Planning-and-Checklists/The-Gift-Tax-Made-Simple/INF12127.html The gifter pay taxes, the giftee does not- unless the gifter fails to pay. Let me know which route you prefer. If you do a bank transfer then you will have to work that out with your bank. If you chose to do a wire transfer, yes. Yes, if it's no more than about $2000. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Renters Liability in Case of Liability Claims for Property Damage or Fire [/INST] The truth is anyone can sue anyone for anything. So yes you could be sued, but the more important part to measure is the probability of success. While this is probably more of a legal stack exchange question, in order for a successful suit there has to be proven at least some negligence on your part in the situation you cite. The very fact that the landlord is not willing to turn on the heat is probably enough to absolve you from any liability. Once you go down to a local store and purchase a UL certified heater then a suit would have a very low probability of success. Perhaps a case could be made if you made your own heater and it burned down the house. But that would require finding a jury that is sympathetic to landlords that will not provide heat for their tenants (highly unlikely). Could the landlord sue the heater company? Yes and would likely receive an out of court settlement. Even in the case that liability can be proven on your part, it is very unlikely you would be targeted. These type of suits target "deep pockets" or those with wealth. Unless something is specifically known about you having a high level of net worth a civil suit will not be brought against a "room renter" because of the lack of funds. People in your demographic tend not to have a lot of money. (No offense intended, I was there myself once.) In the case that you do have a high net worth, then get renters insurance and possibly an umbrella policy. It is a small price to pay to protect a significant amount of assets. If I was in your shoes here is what I would do: </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Renters Liability in Case of Liability Claims for Property Damage or Fire [/INST] According to US News, renter's insurance does cover liability as well as your own belongings. They list this as one of four "myths" often promulgated about renter's insurance. This is backed up by esurance.com, which explicitly mentions "Property damage to others" as covered. Nationwide Insurance says that renter's insurance covers "Personal liability insurance for renters" and "Personal umbrella liability insurance". Those were the first three working links for "what does renters insurance cover" on Google. In short, while it is possible that you currently have a different kind of coverage, this is not a limitation of renter's insurance per se. It could be a limitation in your current coverage. You may be able to simply change your coverage with your current provider. Or switch providers. Or you may already be covered. Note that renter's insurance does not cover the building against general damage, e.g. tornado or a fire spreading from an adjacent building. It is specific to covering things that you caused. This may be the cause of the confusion, as some sources say that it doesn't cover anything in the building. That's generally not true. It usually covers all your liability except for specific exceptions (e.g. waterbed insurance is often extra). </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Planning to invest in stock, age 16 [/INST] First of all, since you're 16 - you will not invest in anything. You cannot, you're a minor. You cannot enter contracts, and as such - you cannot transact in property. Your bank accounts are all UGMA accounts. I.e.: your guardian (or someone else who's the trustee on the account) will be the one transacting, not you. You can ask them to do trades, but they don't have to. They must make decisions in your best interest, which trades may not necessarily be. If however they decide to make trades, or earn interest, or make any other decision that results in gains - these are your gains, and you will be taxed on them. The way taxes work is that you're taxed on income. You're free to do with it whatever you want, but you're taxed on it. So if you realized gains by selling stocks, and reinvested them - you had income (the gains) which you did with whatever you felt like (reinvested). The taxman doesn't care what you did with the gains, the taxman cares that you had them. For losses it is a bit more complicated, and while you can deduct losses - there are limitations on how much you can deduct, and some losses cannot be deducted at all when realized (like wash sale losses or passive activity losses). When you have stock transactions, you will probably need to file a tax return reporting the transactions and your gains/losses on them. You may end up not paying any tax at all, but since the broker is reporting the transactions - you should too, if only to avoid IRS asking why you didn't. This, again, should be done by your guardian, since you personally cannot legally sign documents. You asked if your gains can affect your parents' taxes. Not exactly - your parents' taxes can affect you. This is called "Kiddie Tax" (unofficially of course). You may want read about it and take it into account when discussing your investments with your guardian/parents. If kiddie tax provisions apply to you - your parents should probably discuss it with their tax adviser. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Planning to invest in stock, age 16 [/INST] Don't try individual stocks. If you have a job, any job, even one from mowing lawns, you can open a Roth IRA. If you are under 18 you will need your parents/guardian to setting up the account. You can put the an amount equal to your earned income into the Roth IRA, up to the annual maximum of $5500. There are advantages to a Roth IRA: What happens if you are using your income to pay for your car, insurance, etc? You can get the money from your parents, grandparents. The only rule is that you can't invest more than you have earned. Act before Tax day (April 15th). You know what you made last year. If you open the account and make the contribution before April 15th it can count for last year, as long as you are clear with the broker/bank when you make the deposit. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Why would a company issue a scrip dividend and how will this issue affect me? [/INST] Am I correct in understanding that a Scrip Dividend involves the issue of new shares instead of the purchase of existing shares? Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. This allows shareholders who join the program to obtain new shares without incurring transaction costs that would normally occur if they purchased these shares in the market. Does this mean that if I don't join this program, my existing shares will be diluted every time a Scrip Dividend is paid? Yes, because the number of shares has increased, so the relative percentage of shares in the company you hold will decrease if you opt-out of the program. The price of the existing shares will adjust so that the value of the company is essentially unchanged (similar to a stock split), but the number of outstanding shares has increased, so the relative weight of your shares declines if you opt out of the program. What is the benefit to the company of issuing Scrip Dividends? Companies may do this to conserve their cash reserves. Also, by issuing a scrip dividend, corporations could avoid the Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) that they would normally pre-pay on their distributions. Since the abolition of the ACT in 1999, preserving cash reserves is the primary reason for a company to issue scrip dividends, as far as I know. Whether or not scrip dividends are actually a beneficial strategy for a company is debatable (this looks like a neat study, even though I've only skimmed it). The issue may be beneficial to you, however, because you might receive a tax benefit. You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend). </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> Why would a company issue a scrip dividend and how will this issue affect me? [/INST] Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. I'm sorry, but scrip issues are free (for all ordinary shareholders) and are in proportion to existing share holding. No payment is required from shareholders. So instead of having 10 $1 shares, the shareholder (if accepts) now could have 20 50p shares, if it was a one-for-one scrip issue. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> Can you step up your cost basis indefinitely via the 0% capital gains rate? [/INST] Your real question, "why is this not discussed more?" is intriguing. I think the media are doing a better job bringing these things into the topics they like to ponder, just not enough, yet. You actually produced the answer to How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? so you understand how it works. I am a fan of bracket topping. e.g. A young couple should try to top off their 15% bracket by staying with Roth but then using pretax IRA/401(k) to not creep into 25% bracket. For this discussion, 2013 numbers, a blank return (i.e. no schedule A, no other income) shows a couple with a gross $92,500 being at the 15%/25% line. It happens that $20K is exactly the sum of their standard deduction, and 2 exemptions. The last clean Distribution of Income Data is from 2006, but since wages haven't exploded and inflation has been low, it's fair to say that from the $92,000 representing the top 20% of earners, it won't have many more than top 25% today. So, yes, this is a great opportunity for most people. Any married couple with under that $92,500 figure can use this strategy to exploit your observation, and step up their basis each year. To littleadv objection - I imagine an older couple grossing $75K, by selling stock with $10K in LT gains just getting rid of the potential 15% bill at retirement. No trading cost if a mutual fund, just $20 or so if stocks. The more important point, not yet mentioned - even in a low cost 401(k), a lifetime of savings results in all gains being turned in ordinary income. And the case is strong for 'deposit to the match but no no more' as this strategy would let 2/3 of us pay zero on those gains. (To try to address the rest of your questions a bit - the strategy applies to a small sliver of people. 25% have income too high, the bottom 50% or so, have virtually no savings. Much of the 25% that remain have savings in tax sheltered accounts. With the 2013 401(k) limit of $17,500, a 40 year old couple can save $35,000. This easily suck in most of one's long term retirement savings. We can discuss demographics all day, but I think this addresses your question.) If you add any comments, I'll probably address them via edits, avoiding a long dialog below. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> Can you step up your cost basis indefinitely via the 0% capital gains rate? [/INST] As JoeTaxpayer illustrated, yes you can. However, one thing to remember is that unless you live in a state with no state income tax, there may be state tax to pay on those gains. Even so, it's likely a good idea if you expect either your income (or the federal capital gains tax rate) to rise in the future. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> Deductions greater than Income : Traditional IRA to Roth Conversion? [/INST] Yes. A most emphatic yes. I suggest you look at your 2014 return and project what 2015 will look like. I'd convert enough to "top off" the 15% bracket. Note, if you overshoot it, and in April 2016, see that you are say $5K into the 25% rate, you can just recharacterize the amount you went over and nail the bracket to the dollar. If you have the time and patience, you can convert into 2 different Roth accounts. One account for one asset class, say large cap stocks/funds, the other, cash/bonds. In April, keep the account that outperformed, and only recharacterize the lagger. Roth Roulette is my name for this strategy. It's risk free, and has the potential to boost the value of your conversions. Edit - To be clear, you are permitted to recharacterize (undo) any or all of the converted amount. You actually have until tax time (4/15 or so) plus the 6 month extension. You can recharacterize for any reason - A personal anecdote - I manage my mother in law's money. She is well under the 25% bracket cutoff. Each year I convert, and each April, recharacterize just enough to be at the top of the 15% bracket. Over $100K has been shifted from Traditional IRA to Roth by now. Taxed at 15% so her daughters will 'not' pay 25% when they withdraw. $10K in tax saved from uncle sam, for my effort of filling out paper twice a year for 12 years now. Well worth my effort. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> Deductions greater than Income : Traditional IRA to Roth Conversion? [/INST] Answering for just the US part, yes, you should be able to do this and it's a good strategy. The only additional gotcha I can think of is that if you've made after-tax contributions to your traditional IRA, you need to prorate the conversion, you can't just convert all the pre-tax or all the after-tax. I'm not familiar with Oregon personal income tax so there may be additional gotchas there. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> What happens if a Financial Services Company/Stockbroker goes into administration in the UK? [/INST] Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> What happens if a Financial Services Company/Stockbroker goes into administration in the UK? [/INST] Although I posted this question more than a year ago, I subsequently read information which may be of use as an answer, specifically regarding Pritchard Stockbrokers in the UK several years ago, in which the FSCS stepped in to compensate investors, as detailed in the following: http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/questions-and-answers/qas-about-pritchard-stock-6n940n01k/ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89957c56-21e4-11e3-9b55-00144feab7de.html#axzz3crZYbGZ9 For reference, in case the links above are at some point in future taken offline, the FSCS FAQ states: Q: I had “deposited” money with Pritchard so can I expect £85,000 compensation from FSCS? A: No. Pritchard was not a deposit-taker so the money held does not qualify under regulatory rules as a deposit. The money will be treated as an investment, which carries maximum FSCS compensation of £50,000 per person. FSCS has no discretion to pay any more. Q: What happens if my losses are over the FSCS maximum of £50,000 and I accept the FSCS’s compensation? A: If you choose to accept compensation from FSCS, you will be required to assign (or legally transfer) to FSCS all of your rights to claim in the Administration. FSCS will then claim in the Administration standing “in your shoes” and will claim for the whole of your loss, even if it was over £50,000. When FSCS receives the dividends in your place it will then pay to you any amounts recovered to ensure that you do not suffer a disadvantage for having accepted FSCS compensation first. Example 1: Loss = £80,000 FSCS compensation = £50,000 Dividend of 50p/£ received by FSCS = £40,000 FSCS pays £30,000 to claimant so he is fully compensated (total £80,000), and retains £10,000 recovery for itself Example 2: Loss = £100,000 FSCS compensation = £50,000 Dividend of 50p/£ received by FSCS = £50,000 FSCS pays £50,000 to claimant so he is fully compensated (total £100,000), and retains nothing for itself FSCS does not have to have make a full recovery of its £50,000 before it starts paying its dividend recovery on to claimants. Claimants are not compelled to claim from FSCS, or to accept the FSCS offer of compensation. If a person does not want to transfer his legal rights to claim in the Administration to FSCS in return for accepting the payment of compensation, then s/he can decline our compensation and continue his claim in the Administration. After s/he has received the dividend(s), s/he can then return to FSCS to claim for any remaining shortfall. Therefore, the answer provided by @DumbCoder was correct, but in circumstances where fraudulent activity would mean otherwise, the FSCS was willing to intervene on the behalf of investors. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. <</SYS>> I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? [/INST] My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first "bill" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering <</SYS>> I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? [/INST] Since you ask.... How do I do it? My frugality doesn't come from budgeting or even half so much from keeping money away from myself (though mostly-one-way retirement accounts help). It's a matter of world-view. Spending and shopping for things you don't need is a vice. Limit your indulgence in it. I've also made wasteful purchases in my life. When I find myself considering buying something that I don't really need, I ask myself whether it will end up like... like the stupid eyeglass cleaner gadget from the Sharper Image that I used twice. Or the Bluetooth earpiece that spent 98% of its time lost and .02% of its time in my ear. Or the little Sony VAIO laptop which was great on the train, but probably cost 8 times as much as an EeePC and didn't do way too much more. (In my defense on that one, it was just before netbooks were really taking off... but I still felt bad about it the next year). I've also got two savings goals. The first is responsible and very big (financial stability: a year's expenses plus money for a down payment on a house. a California house. in a good neighborhood.) The second is personal and just medium-big (a large musical instrument). I've decided not to spend money on the second until I'm financially stable and I have enough money to take care of the first... so that makes me more willing to scrimp and save to pursue the first than I would be otherwise. Advice for others? Ask yourself: Why are you buying that thing? You can survive without it, can't you? You didn't need it a week ago, did you? Does the old one have holes in it or something? Or will you at least use it regularly, for years? Why aren't you buying the cheaper kind? Or buying it used? </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. <</SYS>> I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? [/INST] As others have said, doing a monthly budget is a great idea. I tried the tracking expenses method for years and it got me nowhere, I think for these reasons: If budgeting isn't your cup of tea, try the "pay yourself first" method. Here, as soon as you get a paycheck take some substantial portion immediately and use it to pay down debt, or put it in savings (if you have no debt). Doing this will force you to spend less money on impulse items, and force you to really watch your spending. If you take this option, be absolutely sure you don't have any open credit accounts, or you'll just use them to make up the difference when you find yourself broke in the middle of the month. The overall key here is to get yourself into a long term mind set. Always ask yourself things like "Am I going to care that I didn't have this in 10 years? 5 years? 2 months? 2 days even? And ask yourself things like "Would I perfer this now, or this later plus being 100% debt free, and not having to worry if I have a steady paycheck". I think what finally kicked my butt and made me realize I needed a long term mind set was reading The Millionaire Next Door by Tom Stanley. It made me realize that the rich get rich by constantly thinking in the long term, and therefore being more frugal, not by "leveraging" debt on real estate or something like 90% of the other books out there tell you. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. <</SYS>> I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? [/INST] There are a lot of great suggestions here on how to get and keep your finances in shape. But I have to say, I disagree with some on the starting point. The first step to living frugal is to convince yourself that it is worth it. That it is the way to go and the way you want to manage your finances. As @DrFredEdison and @fennec stated, the reason we frugal people don't spend wildly is because of what we believe. So I would suggest buying a book or video/audio series from someone like Dave Ramsey who will encourage and motivate you to spend wisely and show you practical ways to get started. With that said I do agree with a lot of the practical suggestions that have been given here. </s>

<s>[INST] <<SYS>> Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. <</SYS>> I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? [/INST] Gail Vaz-Oxlade from the television show Til Debt Do Us Part has a great interactive budget worksheet that helps you set up a "jar" or envelope system for each month based on your income and fixed expenses. We have used this successfully in the past. What we found most useful was, as others have said, writing everything down, keeping receipts, and thus being accountable and aware of our spending. </s>