Dataset Viewer
query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 5
5.37k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
0cb400a482e3f9456531e52eb9bd8117 | Finding a good small business CPA? | [
{
"docid": "43544cf49d9103aa148b03b6f70b5ce4",
"text": "Ask your colleagues! I know that sounds obvious, but just go to where people who do your sort of business hang out (or better, find some venture capital firms and ask their portfolio companies). It's not something people would keep secret from you...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5d2969e3095dd87f04b0ffbbdb58be3",
"text": "Check your local better business bureau. They can tell you who is in business, who's bonded, and who has had a lot of complaints levied against them for shoddy practices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c68d940b558813b57eb63f1bf1324a2d",
"text": "People to ask: Granted I live in a small town, but when the same guy's name comes up more than once that's who you should hire...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f7fe158bdbb3b8634828acc9ac4633",
"text": "Ask for at least 10 references. Ask for 10 because it will be harder for them to refer you to ringer references like their family or friends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d78f4b17c9d6c973abc5b0d6a83d9fb",
"text": "I have had better experiences with accountants in smaller towns. It seems they are used to working with small businesses and their reputation is very important to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da6133a494b25f496cbb955cd65ff21e",
"text": "The first place to look for an accountant is the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants which has a directory of CPAs, accounting companies, and local accounting societies. I was also looking for one for my own small firm. It really helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1d042d845a3ded83660b9fd7eb6eb0",
"text": "Consult your local Small Business Administration office - they may have resources that can help you find what you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0aed14ebdb745589147bf106ba7b8f4",
"text": "Look for an accountant who brings not only expertise in number crunching, but consulting and business planning - a full package.",
"title": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "12d1a8b507f62f4a0cec0bd65c453fa8",
"text": "\"They are under the radar, but are very strong in Europe and Asia. Deal size will be middle market transactions in North America, a stark contrast to its accounting clients. The good: -established pipeline from accounting and consulting partners & contacts -much better work life balance than most IBs, no 100 hour weeks -widely known name brand -experience working on more than straight forward sell side deals; people underestimate the knowledge and skills you learn through being involved in turnarounds, refinancings, buy side advisory, etc. Cons: -exit opportunities are more limited -pay will be below street -partner \"\"buy in\"\" can be incredibly frustrating I will say that generally KPMG prefers CPAs (even for non-accounting positions) and requires 3-4 years of experience. But, considering you have the interview, they felt you were worth talking with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "276388f53db8e90d4b87333a7c07e18a",
"text": "Generally speaking no person or program is really going to be able to help you lower your current tax burden, most tax decisions are done well before you reach the tax time. You either qualify for the deduction/credit or your don't. Where a good accountant will really be able to help you out is in planning that will limit your future tax burden. Particularly if you run a small business or are very wealthy you will probably want to consider using an accountant. I would always avoid the large scale tax prep places like HR Block they provide the same or lower quality service for a higher price than the software. I run a small business and do my own taxes using turbo tax, but my business isn't overly complex Sole prop, no employees, couple 1099's simple expenses (nothing to amortize) etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5473f78e89bb5a997d4a8fd639073f8",
"text": "I'm glad keshlam and Bobby mentioned there are free tools, both from the IRS and private software companies. Also search for Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) in your area for individual help with your return. A walk-in tax clinic strength is tax preparation. CPAs and EAs provide a higher level of service. For example, they compile and review your prior year's return and your current year, although that is not relevant to your current situation. EAs and CPAs are allowed to represent you before the IRS. They can directly meet or contact the IRS and navigate audits and other requests on your behalf. Outside of tax season, an accountant can help you with tax planning and other taxable events. Some people do not hire a CPA or EA until they need representation. Establishing a relationship and familiarity with an accountant now can save time and money if you do anticipate you will need representation later. Part of what makes the tax code complicated is it can use very specific definitions of a common word. Furthermore, the specific definition of a phrase or word can change between publications. Also, the tax code uses all-encompassing definitions and provide detailed and lengthy lists that are not exhaustive; you may not find your situation listed or described in the tax code, yet you are responsible for reporting your taxable events. The best software cannot navigate you through your tax situation like an accountant. Lastly, some of the smartest people I have met are accountants and to get the most out of meeting with them you should be as familiar as possible with your position. The more familiar you are with accounting, the more advanced knowledge they can share with you. In short, you will probably need an accountant when: You need to explain yourself before the IRS (representation), you are encountering varying definitions in the tax code that have an impact on your return, or you have important economic activities that you are unsure of appropriate tax treatment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37d3deae559faa027f581038480369ba",
"text": "Should I go see a CPA? Not unless you are filing paperwork for a corporation. A CPA (Certified Public Accountant) is a certification required to file certain paperwork for a corporation. In any other situation, you don't need a CPA and can just use a regular accountant. You could conceivably go to a tax accountant, but unless you are doing something complicated (like your own business) or are rich enough that everything is complicated, you should not need to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419c2cebfdf3fcf5bc0590e713494556",
"text": "I have a CPA. They said that it isn't possible. However, I've seen on message boards that it indeed IS possible, multiple times. I'll likely reach out to another CPA. However, I am interested to hear from somebody who has done this before, so that I at least have a name or defined process for what I'm attempting to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "095938096f0729953b2f9a910c9744aa",
"text": "Hi, are you a business lawyer and do you happen to know the answer? I tried asking someone at a Small Business Center but I think he started getting annoyed at all my questions and starting becoming curt so I stopped asking even though I still wasn't clear on all the answers yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4d74a187ce9d827a308f17fa8561d36",
"text": "okay, I was thinking of an investment advisor. I believe in not doing it alone too. But i don't believe in just one more person. Investing advisors, tax advisors, business and law. I don't go to an advisor bc I can't balance my monthly budget and also want to save, you know. Questions more like, highest growth sectors, diversified strategies, etc. And right, they wouldn't get fired bc their client is still happy, (even though their losing money during a record bull market). Guy must be a good sales man. I'd just want to know that my advisors performance is decent relative to the market. But again, I'm not handing over checks to people, only speaking with them. edit: Yes, the average person should worry about making their kids soccer games and shit, not necessarily the markets and what their investment is worth in 30yrs",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bc58462d1b93a9debd7c1241a6979f9",
"text": "\"I am perfectly qualified to not use an accountant. I am a business professor, and my work crosses over into accounting quite a bit. I would certainly find a CPA that is reputable and hire them for advice before starting. I know a physicist who didn't do that and found they ended up with $78,000 in fines. There are a number of specific things an accountant might provide that Quickbooks will not. First and foremost, they are an outsider's set of eyes. If they are good, they will find a polite way to say \"\"you want to do what?!?!?!\"\" If they are good, they won't fall out of their chair, their jaw won't drop to the floor, and they won't giggle until they get home. A good accountant has seen around a hundred successful and unsuccessful businesses. They have seen everything you may have thought of. Intelligence is learning from your own mistakes, wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others. Accountants are the repositories of wisdom. An accountant can point out weaknesses in your plan and help you shore it up. They can provide information about the local market that you may not be aware of. They can assist you with understanding the long run consequences of the legal form that you choose. They can assist you in understanding the trade-offs of different funding models. They can also do tasks that you are not talented at and which will take a lot of time if you do it, and little time if they do it. There is a reason that accountants are required to have 160 semester hours to sit for the CPA. They also have to have a few thousand field hours before they can sit for it as well. There is one thing you may want to keep in mind though. An accountant will often do what you ask them to do, so think about what you want before you visit the accountant. Also, remember to ask the question \"\"is there a question I should have asked but didn't?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6006ef38d0fc100958476f3a31823b0b",
"text": "This is a general rule of thumb that has worked for myself, as well as my Father, Brother and Sister. We all own separate businesses. Mine is B2B, my Father is a freelance architect, my Brother is a plumber, my Sister is a CPA. This is pretty much standard practice for what is required from a franchisee for a franchiser, as well. It may not apply to all businesses, but that can be easily determined by anyone reviewing this list, unless they're complete idiots. So, thank you, Mr. Obvious.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa2180e94ca419c10d2db37381389b7",
"text": "I'm not directly affiliated with the company (I work for one of the add-on partners) but I can wholeheartedly recommend Xero for both personal and business finances. Their basis is to make accounting simple and clean, without sacrificing any of the power behind having the figures there in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7a6eff56f3a33ccc3d36c129fba03cd",
"text": "\"Although they may have some similar functions, CPAs and Enrolled Agents operate in two rather different areas of the accounting \"\"space.\"\" CPAs deal with financial statements, usually of corporations. They're the people you want to go to if you are making an investment, or if you own your own business, and need statements of pretax profit and loss prepared. Although a few of them are competent in taxation, the one thing many of them are weak at is tax rules, and this is where enrolled agents come in. Enrolled agents are more concerned with personal tax liability. They can 1) calculate your income taxes, and 2) represent you in hearings with the IRS because they've taken courses with IRS agents, and are considered by them to be almost \"\"one of us.\"\" Many enrolled agents are former IRS agents, actually. But they are less involved with corporate accounting, including things that might be of interest to stock holders. That's the CPA's province.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dc280dc659eba1a66c2474e3a5ccbfd",
"text": "It depends on the person. i will take turbo tax over any mediocre or poor accountant ANY DAY. You get consistent, accurate tax preparation with the software (desktop - not the online version) I was in a housing rental partnership with my brothers and one of them insisted on using his accountant... what a mistake. I have been using turbo tax for 10+ years and have always been happy. It handles my non trivial situation with ease: I am happy with it but have to admit I don't have a good accountant to compare it to. I see no reason to go to an accountant except for planning purposes. Just for tax prep it is more than worth it and more than you will need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "668cecf9dd78bc8eeb8ac981a1655342",
"text": "Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software, in particular the rows with a market focus of 'personal'. This is probably one of the more complete lists available, and shows if they are web-based (like Mint) or standalone (like Quicken or Microsoft Money).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32b44a14f4784baafbf92a7751d9d834",
"text": "You're correct, there's always a conflict of interest in private professions whether you're a CPA, doctor or lawyer. There's always a possibility of backroom dealings. The only true response is that governmental bodies like the SEC, IRS and otherwise affiliated private organizations like the AICPA can take away your license to practice, send you to jail, or fine you thousands of dollars and ruin your life - if you're caught. I would personally draw a line between publicly traded corporations, amoral as you said, and public accounting. A CPA firm's responsibility is to the public even though they aren't a governmental body. Accounting records are required to do business with banks and the IRS. Without public confidence in the profession, CPA firms wouldn't exist. It's truly an incentive to do a good job and continually gain confidence. They incidentally make money along the way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c2a2438b925a7ca203cf52bfabeaf3",
"text": "You really shouldn't be using class tracking to keep business and personal operations separate. I'm pretty sure the IRS and courts frown upon this, and you're probably risking losing any limited liability you may have. And for keeping separate parts of the business separate, like say stores in a franchise, one approach would be subaccounts. Messy, I'm sure.",
"title": ""
}
] | fiqa |
7bd728610fb8dfb299a0e9cfd25350d2 | Capitalize on a falling INR | [
{
"docid": "16edb3cbd1eeac5c4363c863762cfb5c",
"text": "By no means is this a comprehensive list, but a few items to consider:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec969f84e46d88c9a6711a69a1bb92a1",
"text": "One simplest way is to to do Forex trading. You can do this by buying Foreign Currency Futures when you feel Rupee is going down or by selling those Futures when you feel Rupee will go up.",
"title": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "995e19b8e36871967e758402f14743c4",
"text": "That's all? What's the total shares outstanding? It's on thing is it's 100,000 and another if it's 10,000,000. What's the capitalization? If you don't know, check tech crunch and/or read the about section of your website. Having a bit of experience, my guess would be 10,000,000 (or much much more). Series A capitalization usually goes off at $1. If you are not in a management, sales, production or technology role .. you may not benefit much from the growth. So if you want to, watch your internal job postings and try to move up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d17d924c5b82e1f761143e2f7cd919da",
"text": "\"There is no numerical convention in finance that I have ever seen. If you look at statements or reports that measure growth when the starting value is negative or zero, you typically see \"\"n/a\"\" or \"\"-\"\" or \"\"*\"\" as the result. Any numerical result would be meaningless. Suppose you used 100% and another company had a legitimate 150% gain - where would the 100% change rank? What do my manager and investors expect to see? As a financial analyst - I would not want to see 100%. I would instead rather see something that indicates that the % change is meaningless. As an example, here's the WSJ documentation on change in Net Income: Net Income percent change is the change from the same period from a year ago. Percent change is not provided if either the latest period or the year-ago period contains a net loss. Thinking about it in another context: Yesterday you and your friend had no apples. Today you have 1 and your friend has 20. What percentage increase did you both have? Did you both have a 100% increase? How can you indicate that your friend had a larger \"\"increase\"\"? In that case (and in finance), the context needs to turn from a percentage increase to an absolute increase. A percentage increase is that scenario is meaningless.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20d25eb66d23c393eb8804674b95aa13",
"text": "\"The sentence is mathematically wrong and verbally unclear. Mathematically, you calculate the downwards percentage by So, it should be Verbally, the reporter should have written \"\"The stock is down by 25%\"\", not \"\"down by -25%\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63446bd49d23b1872991316c108d9e6e",
"text": "As NRI/PIO (Non-Resident Indian/Person of Indian Origin), the overseas income and transfers in foreign currency are exempt from Indian income taxes. However, the account in India has to be designated NRE or FCNR. There are three kind of accounts that an NRI can maintain Interest earned in NRE and FCNR accounts is exempt from income taxes. Interest earned in NRO accounts is not exempt from income taxes, in fact banks would withhold about 30% of interest (TDS). The exact tax liability would depend upon income generated in India and TDS could be applied towards that liability when the tax returns are filed. There are other implications also of designating the account as NRE or NRO. NRE accounts can only be funded via inward remittance of permitted foreign currency e.g. deposit USD/GBP. So proceeds like rental income, pension etc. that are generated in INR within India can't be deposited in this account. The money deposited in NRE account can grow tax free and can be converted back in any foreign currency freely. On the other hand NRO accounts can be funded through both inward remittance of permitted foreign currency or local income e.g. rental, pension etc. All the amount in this account is treated as Indian originated INR (even if remitted in foreign currency) and thus is taxed as any other bank account. The amount in this account is subject to the annual cap of convertibility of USD 1 million. Both NRE and NRO accounts are maintained in INR and can be Saving and Term Deposit. Any remittance made to these accounts in any foreign currency is converted to INR at the time of deposit and is maintained in INR. FCNR account are held in foreign currency and can only be Term Deposit. Official definitions: Accounts for Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03e58b338037cb9b34f764a6061a51ca",
"text": "You want the net expense of the surcharge minus the rewards to be no more than the interest that you would pay otherwise. Where t is the compounding period for the rate D expressed as a fraction of the overall period for D. So if D is an annual rate (not the APR, the simple rate), it would be expressed as something like 1/365 if compounded daily. That is the number of years in the compounding period. If a monthly rate or weekly compounding, that would change. And p is the number of such time periods in the grace period. So if the grace period were one month, this might be 30. Other variables are as used in the question, all expressed as percentages (which is why I'm dividing by 100). The D rate should be the simple rate, like 6% not the APR of 6.24% or whatever. Note that I'm saying <=. When equal, there is no financial advantage or disadvantage. You could choose either method for the same cost. Now, one method may be more annoying to implement, in which case you might add a fee for it on one side or the other of the equation. Or simply change the less than or equal to be just less than. I may be missing something that you should consider but I don't know. The problem is generic enough that pertinent details might be hidden. But hopefully this at least gives you a framework under which to consider it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abf616c3123c474f8459d5c623759525",
"text": "\"Capitalization rate and \"\"Net Profit margin\"\" are two different things. In Capitalization rate note that we are taking the \"\"total value\"\" in the denominator and in Net profit margin we are taking \"\"Revenue/Sales\"\". Capitalization Rate: Capitalization Rate = Yearly Income/Total Value For example (from Investopedia: ) if Stephane buys a property that will generate $125,000 per year and he pays $900,000 for it, the cap rate is: 125,000/900,000 = 13.89%. Net Profit margin: Net Profit margin = Net Profit/Revenue For example (from finance formulas): A company's income statement shows a net income of $1 million and operating revenues of $25 million. By applying the formula, $1 million divided by $25 million would result in a net profit margin of 4%. Although the formula is simplistic, applying the concept is important in that 4% of sales will result in after tax profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1276e1f81743f47e0912964e2eba3635",
"text": "\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae6ff1f0e9dd2c7b31393e2e69748b1e",
"text": "\"No, you capitalize all that and deduct as depreciation from the royalties. What it means is that you cannot deduct the expense when it is incurred, but only when you started receiving income that the expense was used to derive. This is similar to capitalizing building improvements which can only be deducted when you start getting rent, or capitalizing software development expenses which can only be deducted once you start selling/licensing the developed software. In the case of book writing - you capitalize the expenses and deduct them once you start receiving royalties. The period over which you deduct (the \"\"depreciation schedule\"\") depends on the type of the expense and the type of the income, so you better get a guidance from a licensed tax accountant (EA or CPA licensed in your State).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c07bbb5851ed11e9beafd9068dce5412",
"text": "\"Outstanding principal balance is the amount you owe at any given time, not including the amount of interest you need to pay as soon as possible. The \"\"capitalized interest\"\" shown is consistent with an average of 13.5 months between when each dollar is borrowed and when the repayment period begins. Suppose you borrow the first half of the money on September 1, 2017 and the second half of the money on February 1, 2017 (5 months later). At that point, half the money has been accruing interest for 5 months. On January 1, 2018, half the money accrued interest for 16 months, and half the money accrued interest for 11 months. The lender now expects you to start repaying the loan, with the first payment due at the end of January 2018 or the beginning of February 2018. If you make the minimum payments on time, the lender expects you to make 120 monthly payments. The last monthly payment would be at the end of December 2027 or the beginning of January 2028. The lender (or the website) should provide details about the actual payment plan, grace periods, provisions for handling inability to pay due to unemployment, and other terms. In the United States, most installment loans pretend that (for purposes of calculating interest) every month has 30 days -- even February and July! Each month, 1/12 of the \"\"annual percentage rate\"\" (APR) is charged as interest. If you do the compounding, a 6.8 percent APR corresponds to (1 + 0.068 / 12)^12 - 1 = 7.016 percent \"\"annual percentage yield\"\" (APY). Also, the APR is understated. The 6.8 percent applies to the full balance (including the loan fees), even though the borrower only gets the amount minus the loan fees. The 6.8 percent rate is useful for doing calculations after the loan fees have been charged, though. These calculations include the capitalized interest and the monthly payment amounts. A true calculation of the APR would take the loan fees into account, and give a higher number than 6.8 percent. But the corrected APR would not be useful for calculating the capitalized interest, nor for calculating the monthly payment amounts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1a0bab43fe7bd385d1f5b7263d5969a",
"text": "It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20c9e9ae8c397b3bcdda3a75e314265a",
"text": "You can write industry loss warrants. This is the closest thing I’ve found since I’ve been interested in this side of the ILS trade. Hedge funds and asset managers can do this. From what I understand it’s you selling the risk. Want to start a fund? 🤔",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4911f9a1e0f23dca3556083c61350494",
"text": "\"Since you did not treat the house as a QBU, you have to use USD as your functional currency. To calculate capital gains, you need to calculate the USD value at the time of purchase using the exchange rate at the time of purchase and the USD value at the time of sale using the exchange rate at the time of sale. The capital gain / loss is then the difference between the two. This link describes it in more detail and provides some references: http://www.maximadvisors.com/2013/06/foreign-residence/ That link also discusses additional potential complications if you have a mortgage on the house. This link gives more detail on the court case referenced in the above link: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93F3d26.html The court cases references Rev. Rul 54-105. This link from the IRS has some details from that (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0303021.pdf): Rev. Rul. 54-105, 1954-1 C.B. 12, states that for purposes of determining gain, the basis and selling price of property acquired by a U.S. citizen living in a foreign country should be expressed in United States dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the dates of purchase and sale of the property, respectively. The text of this implies it is for U.S. citizen is living in a foreign country, but the court case makes it clear that it also applies in your scenario (house purchased while living abroad but now residing in the US): Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale. They argue, however, that the 343,147 pound adjusted cost basis of the residence, consisting of the 297,500 pound purchase price and the 45,647 pounds paid for capital improvements, likewise should be expressed in U.S. dollar terms as of the date of the sale. Appellants correctly state that, viewed “in the foreign currency in which it was transacted,” the purchase generated a 110,227 pound gain as of the date of the sale, which translates to approximately $200,000 at the $1.82 per pound exchange rate. ... However fair and reasonable their argument may be, it amounts to an untenable attempt to convert their “functional currency” from the U.S. dollar to the pound sterling. ... Under I.R.C. § 985(b)(1), use of a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar is restricted to qualified business units (\"\"QBU\"\"s). ... appellants correctly assert that their residence was purchased “for a pound-denominated value” while they were “living and working in a pound-denominated economy,” ... And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "410f540b4ab654bf8bda42f5bd8443f1",
"text": "If you make money in currency speculation (as in your example), that is a capital gain. A more complicated example is if you were to buy and then sell stocks on the mexican stock exchange. Your capital gain (or loss) would be the difference in value in US dollars of your stocks accounting for varying exchange rates. It's possible for the stocks to go down and for you to still have a capital gain, and vice versa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ec4040c3ac8334ab36c650435360cd4",
"text": "\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac1b913c39ab30f29679bf9167b2f2b5",
"text": "Hope you figure it out. There wouldn't be a different RFR / discount rate because you're assuming a return on parked cash - that's what it's for. Since both situations would theoretically happen simultaneously you use the same rate unless you would do something different with cash in each instance.",
"title": ""
}
] | fiqa |
4d070ab9901fac8db231acdaae2532f6 | Where should I invest to hedge against the stock market going down? | [
{
"docid": "c4af7c5b84f8a8e9b587e166afcedb5c",
"text": "If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48345d5776717886b3a688f1d83911e7",
"text": "If you were certain you would probably do best by short selling an ETF that tracked the index for the market you think was about to tank. You'd certainly make a lot more money on that strategy than precious metals. If you were feeling super confident and want to make your money earn even more, you could also buy a bunch of put options on those same ETF funds. Obligatory Warning: Short selling and options can be extremely risky. While most investments cap your potential losses to your total investment, a short sale has no theoretical limit to the amount of money you can lose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24ea228461090f6021348631a5de106",
"text": "Sometimes the simple ways are the best:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85489c05ac7a10c1377c05bb0291504e",
"text": "Put Options. They're less risky than shorting, and have similar upsides. The major difference is that if the price goes up, you're just out the underwriting price. You'll also need to know when the event will happen, or you risk being outwaited. More traditionally, an investor would pull their money out of the market and move into Treasury bonds. Recall that when the market tanked in 2008, the price of treasuries jumped. Problem is, you can only do that trade once, and it hasn't really unwound yet. And the effect is most pronounced on short term treasuries, so you have to babysit the investment. Because of this, I think some people have moved into commodities like gold, but there's a lot of risk there. Worst case scenario you have a lot of shiny metal you can't eat or use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afdd5a936be2a9b0e538321fa88b1cd4",
"text": "There are multiple ETFs which inversely track the common indices, though many of these are leveraged. For example, SDS tracks approximately -200% of the S&P 500. (Note: due to how these are structured, they are only suitable for very short term investments) You can also consider using Put options for the various indices as well. For example, you could buy a Put for the SPY out a year or so to give you some fairly cheap insurance (assuming it's a small part of your portfolio). One other option is to invest against the market volatility. As the market makes sudden swings, the volatility goes up; this tends to be true more when it falls than when it rises. One way of invesing in market volatility is to trade options against the VIX.",
"title": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "8615e9a68e1874e10f12d06764d16009",
"text": "Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1856f12fa004f6ee1b1d9889a4827b0d",
"text": "Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "231edf979c5c89266277168a74e11be4",
"text": "\"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation. However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term. However, on its way up, it has ups and downs. If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up. When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income. (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.) If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to \"\"sell low,\"\" losing a significant portion of your investment. Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines. If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks. It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market. On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a72ff5df7c10fc5819181bb3b972e83",
"text": "Then buy an indexed ETF or mutual fund that tracks the S&P 500 and leave your money there until you need it. If you can (there are restrictions for income, etc.), try and setup a retirement vehicle, such as a Roth IRA to get tax advantages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c",
"text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb87072852045121352db618e87426c1",
"text": "If you are worried about an increase in volatility, then go long volatility. Volatility itself can be traded. Here in the US there is an index VIX that is described as tracking volatility. What VIX actually tracks is the premium of S&P 500 options, which become more expensive when traders want to hedge against volatility. In the US you can trade VIX options or invest in VIX tracking ETFs like VXX. Apparently there are similar ETFs listed in Canada, such as HUV. Volatility itself is quite volatile so it is possible that a small volatility long position would cover the losses of a larger long position in stocks. If you do choose to invest in a volatility ETF, be aware that they experience quite a lot of decay. You will not want to hold it for very long.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9479291259074533e355387dc6805eb",
"text": "\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700d562ac8cc25dccfd48cd894eb4ef0",
"text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8310f2218e19f58e31b2da656ce534a7",
"text": "Are you willing to risk the possibility of investing to prepare for these things and losing money or simply getting meager returns if those crises don't happen? Just invest in a well diversified portfolio both geographically and across multiple sectors and you should be fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58d36651cc5f1d4b3e8327bc4833378a",
"text": "\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \"\"market conditions\"\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b70a0767127af96e29b1b5b41b93e99",
"text": "\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61d4dc5d0d5d24072fd42eeb5e6639bc",
"text": "I've thought of the following ways to hedge against a collapsing dollar:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aca5ab77ad9a7c18b6ceeb4300f23be",
"text": "$10k isn't really enough to make enough money to offset the extremely high risks in investing in options in this area. Taking risks is great, but a sure losing proposition isn't a risk -- it's a gamble. You're likely to get wiped out with leveraged options, since you don't have enough money to hedge your bets. Timing is critical... look at the swings in valuation in the stock market between the Bear Sterns and Lehman collapses in 2009. If you were highly leveraged in QQQQ that you bought in June 2009, you would have $0 in November. With $10k, I'd diversify into a mixture of foreign cash (maybe ETFs like FXF, FXC, FXY), emerging markets equities and commodities. Your goal should be to preserve investment value until buying opportunities for depressed assets come around. Higher interest rates that come with inflation will be devastating to the US economy, so if I'm betting on high inflation, I want to wait for a 2009-like buying opportunity. Then you buy depressed non-cyclical equities with easy to predict cash flows like utilities (ConEd), food manufacturers (General Mills), consumer non-durables (P&G) and alcohol/tobacco. If they look solvent, buying commodity ETFs like the new Copper ETFs or interests in physical commodities like copper, timber, oil or other raw materials with intrinsic value are good too. I personally don't like gold for this purpose because it doesn't have alot of industrial utility. Silver is a little better, but copper and oil are things with high intrinsic value that are always needed. As far as leverage goes, proceed with caution. What happens when you get high inflation? High cost of capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbf893ec807be8fab7f44e5329eadcc3",
"text": "\"As a great man once said, \"\"No risk it, no biscuit.\"\" Nothing can immunize you from catastrophe. But cash won't do well in a war, either, so you need to turn it into something else. And timing is a crapshoot. When you enter, when you exit, total waste of your energy. Find something you want to own and watch, and get wet. If you want to be diversified, get into index funds. You'll technically own a little of everything, and they do well if you just leave them be. For example, they're higher than they were at the start of every war in the past. If you don't need the money in the war, just leave it there and you'll come out later with more than you started with which is what you wanted. Stay away from bonds, because the Fed is going to start unwinding QE soon and that's going to clobber bond values, taking bond funds with them. If you feel totally convinced war is coming, then get something that exposes you to gold. Like gold, for instance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6821015b22bf903e1176699de9ec2480",
"text": "Buy puts on stock holdings buy puts on indexes look at volatility etfs and silver/gold etf s. Calling a market top is hard people hVe tried for 8 years now. 90 of protection via options expires worthless. Who knows if we have another crash. I don't call tops or bottoms if we start falling then I'll look at protection and play the downside",
"title": ""
}
] | fiqa |
7ac1be21fe1063a2781401bdfe4bfa28 | What would happen if the Euro currency went bust? | [
{
"docid": "d47d1d96b13fb1d436e6802cf96bb61c",
"text": "Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aab8bfc32c55710d1b90338183b1a0fc",
"text": "These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e3ceaab19aa92b952daca64edf09669",
"text": "If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website). Europe holds the record for most failed currencies. It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993. I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed. It depends on how it fails. If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros. Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place. Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "332c7311f705acec1dd28a25e372bdce",
"text": "I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals. What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9068374da97395610198f6d0ad280764",
"text": "Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ff08107bbfa13cbfeed8f5187580bce",
"text": "\"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much \"\"connected\"\". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite.\"",
"title": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "23dcb346982a8bdcf2ec460e8c272c4c",
"text": "There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53a33eed609d2c59d67a43cc281aea4f",
"text": "There are various indexes on the stock market that track the currencies. Though it is different than Forex (probably less leverage), you may be able to get the effects you're looking for. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but looked some into FXE, to trade the Euro debt crisis. Here's an article on Forex, putting FXE down (obviously a biased view, but perhaps will give you a starting point for comparison, should you want to trade something specific, like the current euro/dollar situation).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e087c06ec9a617707d80075a5f8175b",
"text": "It depends on what actions the European Central Bank (ECB) takes. If it prints Euros to bail out the country then your Euros will decline in value. Same thing with a US state going bankrupt. If the FED prints dollars to bailout a state it will set a precedent that other states can spend carelessly and the FED will be there to bail them out by printing money. If you own bonds issued by the bankrupting state then you could lose some of your money if the country is not bailed out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cc7e456751c9ae6e555519de100de88",
"text": "In many countries in Europe the prices shot through the roof, so it is not all positive. Also the switching country gives out lot of monetary control that is not welcomed by many. I think that UK is not going to change to euro for a long long time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "776a0fad3abfce8445dedec1de473ff6",
"text": "Short the Pound and other English financial items. Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well. You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard. Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f",
"text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72bad22ce0b9a53d90e41eec6a0b3030",
"text": "\"Why will they find financing when they leave the Euro? Why would their currencies not simply hyperinflate due to excessive issuance in an attempt to devalue? Which is worse for unemployment, austerity or hyperinflation? >they'd be expelled by Germany This is a union correct? Why do you assume Germany holds all the cards? I've read that Gonzalo Lira essay and have read Mish about everyday since 2009, yet still do not think it is so obvious that the Euro will collapse. I gained quite a bit of skepticism from Barry Eichengreen's paper on the [Breakup of the Euro Area.](http://www.nber.org/papers/c11654.pdf?new_window=1) What I see right now is that so far the ECB has only acted in such a way as to prevent outright deflation and meet its 2% inflation target, but not to continuously outright fund the profligate governments. They let the bond markets force those governments into contraction or into default whereas the fed, with its dual mandate, will always buy the US bonds and eventually will inflate the currency as opposed to having a sovereign default. So I think we will see the ECB continue to print as much is needed to meet its mandate but at the same time there will be defaults, bank nationalizations and failures, and a continued lack of growth in the Euro area until eventually the austerity measures bring revenue and spending in line at which point the countries under heavy debt would be stupid not to default because they can self finance. Whereas in the US we are so dependent on deficit financing that as foreigners move further away from holding treasuries we become more susceptible to bond vigilantes taking the reigns which will force the feds hand into outright monetization. Then I think we will see our own government exacerbate inflation by bidding on the same goods that those dollars which no longer are going into treasuries are bidding on. Then I think we'll finally see bad inflation in the US. Of course as long as there is hoards of money fleeing Europe for the US \"\"safe haven,\"\" the lack of foreign treasury investment is pretty moot. *spelling\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd99462a2beb0902adf9f5e34c303db6",
"text": "I suppose they still could risk hyperinflation? Anyways, if they got their own currency that would probably be positive for their exports. Still, what are they going to export? Buying any raw materials would be super expensive with their devalued currency. What is your thought about their exporting with devalued currency?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a316b4e61c79499efab27a0de2c74573",
"text": "I am going to clone an answer from another question that I wrote ;) and refer you to an article in the Wall Street Journal that I read this morning, What's at Stake in the Greek Vote, summarizing the likely outcome of the situation if a Euro exit looks likely after the election: ... we will see a full-fledged bank run. Greek banks would collapse ... The market exchange-rate would likely be two or three drachmas to the euro, which would double or triple the Greek price of imported goods within a few days. Prices of assets, including real-estate assets, would crumble. Those who moved their deposits abroad would be able to buy these assets cheaply, leading to a significant, regressive redistribution of Greek wealth. In short, you'd lose about two-thirds of your savings unless you were storing them somewhere safe from the conversion. The article also predicts difficulty importing goods (other nations will demand to be paid in euro, not drachma) leading to disruption of trade and various supply shortages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed038e26e5efea7e3bd88d6f5689b257",
"text": "> The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy. I'm not sure how that's related at all. Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok again in the future after a jarring multi-national currency shift. There are tons of other factors in play. First of all, who's going to accept drachma again? What is it worth? What about pesata and lira? These currencies haven't been used in over a decade. Who is going to value them? Who is going to accept them? What happens when the Greeks default? When their pension checks start bouncing? This is what Germany is fearing. Who is going to buy their products when there is a major currency crisis going on?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cdaadc6c03da77b13a3596a89844273",
"text": "Rising rates is going to counteract the asset bubble and Draghi & the rest of the ECB are well aware of this. Now that Spain & Italy got their shit together they're going to go full steam ahead. Also Germany specifically is in trouble given its large companies such as BASF and others are threatened as companies on countries globally are consolidating and a focus by domestic experts on the trade deficit the U.S. holds with Germany. The European economy will be fine. Certain European assets too, but do not be too sure on the DAX.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "652a441b503ccae88a469cfbf4f0a0d6",
"text": "I can't think of any specifically, but if you haven't already done so it would be worthwhile reading a textbook on macro-economics to get an idea of how money supply, exchange rates, unemployment and so on are thought to relate. The other thing which might be interesting in respect of the Euro crisis would be a history of past economic unions. There have been several of these, not least the US dollar (in the 19C, I believe); the union of the English and Scottish pound (early 1600s); and the German mark. They tend to have some characteristic problems, caused partly by different parts of the union being at different stages in an economic cycle. Unfortunately I can't think of a single text which gathers this together.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4d799f952082cf6768813a8df4b3127",
"text": "The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy. Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing. This has increased the value of the Swiss franc. In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low. It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros. The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise. The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro. This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other. The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party. I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing. Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency. Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent. I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9436fc2ca722cf39549c45710f53c2c0",
"text": "It's slightly more complicated than that. Usually a country that was in Greece's situation would be able to use inflation to devalue their currency which would have the effect of lowering the value of the government's debts and also of making Greek prices more competitive in the international market. Or they could use quantitative easing to inject cheap cash into the economy to help stimulate it. Because Greece is on the Euro, however, they have no control over their own currency and their options are highly limited. Additionally, when you join the EU, especially the Eurozone, that's supposed to come with additional internal responsibilities, but it's also supposed to come with additional external ones as well. Greece has a responsibility to get its shit together, but the whole point is that more financially stable countries have a responsibility to help them. Right now that means Germany; they're the ones with the greatest control over the Euro and they're shying away from their duties. If the rest of Europe didn't want to risk ending up in this position they shouldn't have let Greece into the Eurozone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e27dbab65c841fe330d918640d3b114",
"text": "\"> Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok I'm not claiming it will be \"\"definitely be ok\"\". definitely ok != utterly doomed. > What happens when the Greeks default? If they were paying in drachma, they wouldn't default. They'd print more drachma and inflation would occur. That's how currency imbalances adjust. Germany wants it both ways. They want a stable Europe-wide currency but they don't want a Europe-wide economy, they want their economy isolated from the problems in the rest of Europe. Germany should leave the Euro.\"",
"title": ""
}
] | fiqa |
6868bc0f581131d38934967f9f472389 | How do the wealthy pay for things? | [
{
"docid": "b23d1bc1dc22e8aef985a8bf65abb967",
"text": "\"This is second hand information as I am not a millionaire, but I work with such people everyday and have an understanding of how they handle cash: The wealthy people don't. Simple. Definitely not if they don't have to. Cash is a tool to them that they use only if they get benefit of it being a cash transaction (one of my friends is a re-seller and he gets a 10% discount from suppliers for settling lines using cash). Everything else they place on a line of credit. For people who \"\"dislike\"\" credit cards and pay using ATM or debit cards might actually have a very poor understanding of leverage. I assure you, the wealthy people have a very good understanding of it! Frankly, wealthy people pay less for everything, but they deserve it because of the extreme amount of leverage they have built for themselves. Their APRs are low, their credit limits are insanely high, they have longer billing periods and they get spoiled by credit card vendors all the time. For example, when you buy your groceries at Walmart, you pay at least a 4% markup because that's the standardized cost of processing credit cards. Even if you paid in cash! A wealthy person uses his credit card to pay for the same but earns the same percentage amount in cash back, points and what not. I am sure littleadv placed the car purchase on his credit card for similar reasons! The even more wealthy have their groceries shipped to their houses and if they pay cash I won't be surprised if they actually end up paying much less for fresh (organic) vegetables than what equivalent produce at Walmart would get them! I apologize for not being able to provide citations for these points I make as they are personal observations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17e78480112a308574692e1fc00fecfe",
"text": "\"While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that \"\"regular\"\" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10c0f678060e4a75b6b7b5a802c51848",
"text": "I was once the personal assistant to two wealthy NYC sisters. They did not pay for anything. For example, if we were riding the subway, I would pay, and be reimbursed by the Company. They had multiple residences and investment properties. Each property was purchased through a separate Limited Liablity Corporation, and paid for by the Company. When they purchased, donated or sold art, it was through their family Foundation. Their income primarily came from a draw of funds from the family estate, although one of them worked as an architect, which provided further income.",
"title": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "323c75c34ba054d6ba99ed51108702ae",
"text": "Right, just like computers are only available to the upper class. In reality, the wealthy would just be the initial market. As their demand causes supply increases/cost innovation, prices will inevitably fall (and philanthropy almost certainly rise), which would make the enhancements available further down the economic ladder, which cycles the process again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51ace463ec495857250cc8631b9ee890",
"text": "I got that notion from Max Kaiser, his ideas about that are mostly about interest rate apartheid - banks and rich people get money at zero interest, we pay 9, 10, 30%. I think it involves everything from how we are seen in the eyes of the law to assuming risk, etc. We are expected to play by the rules and they are not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49dfe3479f965f01e8864a3284d28d6a",
"text": "The 'uber' rich because they take chances that others aren't willing to. They also are rich because they make products people like. Take for instance Apple [or whatever smartphone/computer brand your so privileged to own] ,like them or not they make a great product (determined by the market). If the market didn't like it (Microsoft Zune) then it'll fail. As for the risk aspect, starting a business takes a TON of risk, and only after much strife and hardships can a business have potential to reach great heights. You think starting Popeyes's was easy? You think franchising is easy? Absolutely not! You sit there in your privileged high-horse saying the rich should pay because they make something you like and helped to succeed. It's like wanting something for free. Buy phone -> Others buy phone -> Complain about the rich and vote for UBI -> Get extra $ you wouldn't have gotten otherwise-> Spend that extra $ on the next years phone",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f710cf70297ba675d3fe3c1fc9557140",
"text": "And rich person is more likely not to choose subpar government services when they can choose something else. Meaning if the were allowed to opt out of this monopoly service provider they would. Meaning the only ones who want government services is those who want someone else to pay for it for them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dceaf523ac9a71169632ad3f2e7dde8",
"text": "\"Most well-off people have investments which they have held for long periods of time, often of very substantial value such as a large part of a company. They also have influence on legislators and officials through various social contacts, lobbyists, and contributions. They managed to convince these law makers to offer a lower tax on income derived from sales of such investments. The fig leaf covering this arrangement is that it \"\"contributes to the growth of economy by encouraging long-term investment in new enterprises.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5b754eb59d20a461ed839fe1d464e59",
"text": "The prices we pay for goods and services is set by our level of income because we have a huge choice of price levels from luxury to economy class and DIY. This was true of rent and mortgage payments before the real estate bubble. There is still some choice though from a tiny house or trailer to a mansion. None of these are one set demand decided by someone else as with land value tax. Many people like where they live and want to stay there. Those people create a cross generational community. Land and homes must be affordable and we should have as much freedom about what we do with our homes as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6046d9a59d22cd2c94acdd6a8042811",
"text": "Exactly. People don't seem to realize that a lot of the things they take for granted as being provided by the government were more than adequately provided by private charities until the government stepped in and 'fixed' things...or else they do get it but sweep it under the rug and mumble something about 'its more efficient this way' to justify intruding on the private affairs of others. This is why the founding fathers hated democracy -- the Athenians had no concept of rei publicae.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94e274d66650337c888a371d404e2d7b",
"text": "People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4aa71bc5470147597db83be59cdb3e56",
"text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62e95a628269a92d9a6eb88cf35f5c91",
"text": "\"Partly I suspect this is selection bias. You say you see so many luxury cars go by. But if you're looking for them, you're going to notice them. Have you calculated the actual percentage? Do they make up 50% of the cars that pass a specific point in a specific period of time? Or just 10% if you really counted? You say you live in Baltimore county, Maryland. That's a relatively wealthy area, so I'd expect the percentage of luxury cars to be higher than the national average. You'd likely see considerably fewer in the backwoods of Mississippi. That said, some people who own luxury cars can't really afford them. I'm reminded of a wonderful TV commercial I saw recently where a man is showing off all his material goods, he talks about his big house, and his swimming pool, and his fancy car, with a big smile on his face, standing tall, and generally looking proud and happy. And then he says, \"\"How do I do it?\"\" And suddenly his expression changes to complete despair, he slumps down, and says, \"\"I'm in debt up to my eyeballs.\"\" It turns out to be a commercial for a debt-counseling service. Some people put very high value on owning a fancy car and are willing to sacrifice on other things. If having a big fancy car is more important to you then, say, having a nice house or the latest computer or a big screen TV or dining out more often or going on more expensive vacations or whatever you have to give up to get the car, well, that's your decision. Personally I don't care much about a fancy car, I just want something that gets me where I want to go. And I've always figured that with an expensive car, you have to constantly worry about getting in an accident and damaging or destroying it. If you put your money into a big fancy house, at least houses rarely collide with each other. Personally, I make a nice income too. And I have a $500/month mortgage and zero car payment because I drive a 2003 pickup that I bought with cash. But I have two kids in college and I'm trying to get them through with no debt, that's where all my money is going.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16cae3c6ef9c86ec505e60790d2ac9ac",
"text": "The rich pay more in taxes. It would be hard to cut taxes in a way that *didnt* help the rich. I'm more concerned with what it does for the middle and lower classes. I don't care that much if it helps the rich. EDIT: Okay, so let's say you give the top third of the population (by income) a 1% income tax cut. The middle third got a 5% cut, and the bottom third got a 10% cut. In dollar value, the rich are still getting a larger cut, simply by virtue of how much they pay in taxes. Someone made a point about property tax. Speaking very generally, poor people rent and rich people own. So a property tax inherently benefits the wealthy, because they own more property. Certainly any kind of corporate or capital gains cut would benefit the wealthy, since they own the corporations and are more heavily invested. Even a sales tax cut would benefit the wealthy more than the non-wealthy, simply because they spend more money. But what frustrates me is how hung up people get on the fact that something is good for the wealthy, (such as with the headline of OPs article) as if we should actively try to avoid helping anyone rich. As I stated above, I don't care that it helps the rich, as long as it's helping the rest of us, too. And if the rich are getting a bigger benefit than I am by virtue of being rich, I'm not bothered, because I can do math.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb309bf8d35c9118d1a2dc3649ee6875",
"text": "Those billionaires are often billionaires because they make it their job to take my hard earned money, which I give them willingly, and make it worth more than inflation in fifty years so that I can retire with dignity, comfort and peace. If you tax the hell out of that then people are either not going to do it, or it will be prohibitively expensive to do so, meaning that the 401(K) system makes less money. Also, wtf did the rich people do to deserve to be punished?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3feabf3c5377f19e11874057aade2f8",
"text": "\"This article is also light on sources. It overstates inherited wealth. People who work with rich people know the saying \"\"shirtsleeve to shirtsleeve in three generations\"\". There is a proclivity of rich descendants to squander their fortune, which totally negates a majority of this article. In sum, this article and news source insists on itself\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51d4ff1cf3835ae0b7b0761fa4fe207b",
"text": "First of all, it's not the 1% that run things. It is more like the 0.1%. They run things because they run the government, not because they cannot be challenged in the market. We should expect the courts to be less corruptible because their proceedings take place in public, whereas the Executive bureaucracy and most of the Congressional machinations occur behind closed doors. Deals are made that we have no knowledge of. That is where the 0.1% operates. They are as afraid of the light of day as vampires. There is usually a cycle of wealth that lasts three or four generations unless that cycle is interrupted by collusion with the government. Europe's rich stayed rich because they became the government. Their thefts were sanctified by making them nobility and protecting them with the state. Look at the makeup of Obama's inner circle. It is the banking nobility. Those banks and banksters would all be broke now if they had not harnessed the government to steal from thee and me to give to them. Small government that debates everything in the open will not protect the very rich. Without government protection their wealth will return to the general pool in three generations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03d36bcfc0701893351e08d872295887",
"text": "Some good answers already, but let me add a TL:DR version. Brokers work like a special type of bank account where you can deposit or withdraw money. The major difference is that they also give you the ability to buy/sell investments with the money in your account which you can do by either calling them or using their website. Important: Many investments you will make through a broker(e.g. stocks) are not insured against losing value like the money in your bank account.",
"title": ""
}
] | fiqa |
0993c183c1b917576497318629f6d459 | How should one refuse to father in law (Chinese) when he wants to borrow money? | [
{
"docid": "5a709748c1e96a752fe134116569609c",
"text": "\"In these situations, one solution is to use the \"\"I was just about to ask you the same thing...\"\" response. This is kind of a famous way to deal with people asking you for money, whether it's someone asking to borrow \"\"$10 at lunch time\"\" or \"\"$3000 for a car\"\" or the like. So: Person X asks you for money, say $2000. Your reply: Ah, that's bad luck, I was just about to ask you the same thing... Follow this immediately - just keep talking - by launching in to a really incredibly detailed discussion of why you need to borrow money (pick a slightly larger amount, slet's ay $3500). Just \"\"keep talking\"\" and don't let the other person get a word in. Go in to great detail about just what you need the $3500 for and why. It's a good trick.\"",
"title": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "0a8334685586359d464d1eee78129ba8",
"text": "\"Assuming United States; rules may be wildly different elsewhere... The \"\"family loan\"\" trick essentially lets you amortize a gift over multiple years of gift allowance and hopefully dodge gift tax, at the cost of having to pay income tax on the interest you must charge on the loan. The main advantage is that it lets you transfer all the money up front, rather than in $17,000-a-year-per-person-per-person chunks. Let's take the normal case first. Any one person can give any one person up to a specified amount (currently $17k, I believe,) without incurring gift tax. Note that this is counted per person, not per household; you and your spouse could each give $17k per year to each of your son and his spouse under this rule, adding up to $68k per year total. The family loan dodge consists of making them a loan of the money at the mandated minimum interest rate to make it a legal loan (something like 0.3% APR last time I looked), setting the repayment schedule so their payments each year including interest come out to less than you can gift them with tax-free, and then making that gift by paying (yourself) those payments on their behalf. You do need to pay income tax on the portion of those payments that represents interest income, but at that low rate this is a minor cost for the convenience. You'd also want to set up your will to cover what happens if you die with them still owing money on the loan. And this, I believe, is where you will really need expert advice if you go this route, to minimize the government's cut at that time. There may be better answers. If you are talking about this much money, you owe it to yourself to purchase expert advice from someone who has training and experience n this area, rather than taking free advice from the Internet that is likely to cost you much more in the long run. This is a situation where you can't afford not to hire a pro. (For example, I have no idea how trusts might or might not fit your needs.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ea0d2729ad6a4532f928aabff6b2bd6",
"text": "If your intentions are honorable and you intend to pay it back in full and with interest, doesn't matter where you borrow the money from. But as a rule, family/friends and money don't mix.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd08117069dd39c471f4e395776830a6",
"text": "You are using interchangeably borrow/loan and gift. They are very different. For the mortgage company, they would prefer that the money from friends and family be a gift. If it is a loan, then you have an obligation to pay it back. If they see money added to your bank accounts in the months just before getting the loan, they will ask for the source of the money. Anything you claim as a gift will be required to be documented by you and the person making the gift. You don't want to lie about it, and have the other person lie about it. They will make you sign documents, if they catch you in a lie you can lose the loan, or be prosecuted for fraud. If the money from friends and family is a loan, the payments for the loan will impact the amount of money you can borrow. From the view of the IRS the gift tax only comes into play if during one calendar year a person makes a gift to somebody else of 14,000 or more. There are two points related to this. It is person-to-person. So if your dad gives you 14K, and your mom gives you 14K, and your dad gives your wife 14k and your mom gives your wife 14K; everything is fine. So two people can give 2 people 56K in one year. Please use separate checks to make it clear to the IRS. If somebody gives a gift above the exclusion limit for the year, they will have to complete IRS form 709. This essentially removes the excess amount from their life time exclusion, in other words from their estate. Nothing to worry about from the IRS. The bank wants to see the documentation. Also you are not a charity, so they can't claim it as a donation. Why do you have 6,000 in cash sitting around. The mortgage company will want an explanation for all large deposits so you better have a good explanation. From the IRS FAQ on Gift Taxes: What can be excluded from gifts? The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts. Number 3 on the list is the one you care about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f422c0f802ac7f1df127f96a2e1c1e2",
"text": "It's perfectly legal for your brother to make a loan to you. However those two transactions are separate. If he defaults on the LC loan because you didn't pay him, it's his responsibility. If you default on your loan with him, you've got big problems. Money + family/friends = scary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9fabb1dae4afdd4f326ff0595b5be42",
"text": "Echoing the others, never lend money to a friend or family member, just give it to them. If you must have a contract in place then consider it a pay it forward type contract where the friend simply gives the same amount to someone in need at a future date. The value of the friendship can never be measured, but it surely will be diminished by the amount of the loan between the two of you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "471cf77dadff4da873d468a9f47e4634",
"text": "Trying to forcefully reclaim the money will ruin the relationship. In general it's bad practice to loan money to family.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "147d3f1cc3989a3f208c573d1303da36",
"text": "I recently lent some money to my sister. While I generally agree with Phillip that lending to family and friends should be avoided, I felt I needed to make an exception. She really needed the cash, and my husband and I agreed that we would be ok without it. Here are some guidelines I used that may be helpful to others: In the end, I think lending to family and friends should be avoided, and certainly should not be done lightly, but by communicating clearly and directly, and keeping careful records, I think you can help someone out and still avoid the lingering awkwardness at future Thanksgivings when one person is convinced that the other owes one more payment, and the other swears it was paid in full.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d77db73e41b716cd2cce4a56d9ae8161",
"text": "What you are positioning as a loan was not a loan at all. Your father bought something to be delivered in the future. Your aunt does not want to deliver it, so she should buy it back at whatever the current market value is. What is the price that your dad believes her share of the inheritance is currently worth? Is that based on actual appraisals and some sort of objective audit? If so, your aunt doesn't have much of a case. If not, then she could seek an audit to bolster her bargaining position. How much did your aunt benefit from having a place to live for the last 15 years. Was that benefit greater than some larger amount of money at an unknown future date? That's probably why she sold her inheritance 15 years ago. Now that the inheritance looks like it is going to be available soon, she wants to trade back after having enjoyed the use of your father's money. That might be okay, but simply paying back the original sum with inflation, but without interest, doesn't seem fair to your father. She may not be able to afford to give any more than what she is offering, in which case, she might want to consider offering the original sum now and some portion of her inheritance as interest on that original sum. I'm not taking sides in this one. If it were one of my siblings, I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and take a smaller amount back if I felt that the lesson was learned (and if I felt that he/she would make wise use of my gift to him/her). I have no idea what your father's current economic situation is, nor am I aware of any other baggage that might influence his feelings about his sister. It's as likely as not that money isn't really what is bothering him, in which case, the amount she repays may have little to do with bridging the divide between them. You might need to ask different questions in the Interpersonal Skills stack if you want to help your father feel better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daaca503aa30d95ef943eb99ce5fbee2",
"text": "There are two Questions: Financial institutions do not care about your nationality, only your ability to pay over time. For long term debt the lender will want assurances that the borrower has the ability and means to pay the debt over time. A legal resident in the US should have no more difficulty obtaining financing than a citizen under similar life circumstances. The Lender is also under legal obligation to confirm that the borrower is who they say they are, will have the ability to pay over time AND have no malicious intent in the purchase. Persons who do not have legal status in the US, AND who do not have the means to pay for property outright will have difficulty obtaining financing as they will have trouble establishing the requirements of the Lender. This is simple math, a lender will be reluctant to lend to any person who is more likely to have difficulty paying the obligation than another. In your case Your father would be an unlikely candidate for a mortgage because he cannot establish his legal status nor can he guarantee that he will have the legal right to earn a means to pay the loan back. This puts the lender at risk both of losing the money lent AND losing the right to repossess the property if the borrower doesn't pay. Despite all of the obstacles I have indicated above, it is still possible for your father to purchase property legally, but the risk and the cost go way up for him as a borrower. There may be sellers willing to finance property over time, but your father's status puts him at a disadvantage if the seller is not honest. There may be community coalitions which can help you work through the challenges of property ownership. Please see these related articles",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b24150f078a397284069287170be6afd",
"text": "> My wife is trying to start a business. She has no experience at all. Don't put in too much money. Use this as a chance to learn because she's going to have a bad experience. > She is working with the husband of a friend who is importing products from China. Red flag #1. > He is in China and his wife is in the USA on a tourist visa (no work allowed but she works) Red flag #2. > I have caught this guy lying or being way less than transparent many times. You're telling me that a guy using his wife to illegaly conduct business in the US isn't above board? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. > I think he thinks others are stupid and can not easily see his misdeeds. That could be a red flag, or he could be correctly reading the situation. You said your wife has no experience in this arena, so why would he listen to her? > “You tried to screw with me and my wife too many times so F you” Red flag #3. Don't mix business with emotions. > I am asking for a settlement or I will do everything in my power to totally screw up his life Red flag #4. > It will never stop or improve if the second party has a less than acceptable level of honesty and transparency. This is why contracts and lawyers exist. In business, everyone thinks they're making out better than the person on the other end of the table. If they didn't, they would ask for more. There can be mutually beneficial situations, but showing all of your cards is a great way for them to be used against you during negotations. > It is a startup not big money, but us being in the USA as lawful citizens (me USA born, my wife naturalized Chinese ), we hold the risk here. Yeah, don't knowingly break the law. The risk is too high for you. > I lived in China for ten years. Over there, the Chinese do, in almost all cases, all they can do to screw foreigners Red flag #5. Why do you want to be in business with a group you think will almost always exploit you? > My wife thinks that because they are Chinese (the other party), I should be willing to accept this behavior. I totally disagree. Red flag #6. Don't use stereotypes to make judgment calls. > My wife wants to have her own company very badly and she is very disappointed. Life is full of disappointment, and you can't wish for success. Well, you can, but you end up in situations like these. > Do you agree when dealing with lying business “partners” if the offenses continue, even after a warning, that all bets should be off and one should change into “screw them” mode and claw back all possible money/power via all available legal resources? Say it with me. CONTRACTS! CONTRACTS! CONTRACTS! I'm not talking about a quick signature on a napkin. I'm talking about vetted and formalized. You have clear expectations. You have remediation. You have timeframes. If they don't deliver the promised expectation then you sue them. If you act on emotions then you are likely to do yourself more harm than good. If you don't think you can recover what you're due, you shouldn't be in business with a shady operator to begin with. > Comments? Talk to a lawyer. You need to understand your risk and liability. If you're fine, stop investing money into this venture. You'll be taken for all you're worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f095485f8cb5da37475c27ba9a17d51",
"text": "I say to always say yes when asked to loan money to a friend or family member as long as you have the money to do it with. That is the key: having th emoney to do it with. And - don't expect to get it back ever. If you do, great. When you don't, your expectation was met. Although not often, I've lent money to friends and most of the time have been paid back. $10, $300, more. For the times when I was not, I do remember but I don't hold it against the person. Money is only money, after all. Friends are precious and worthy of your aid, support, and respect. If they weren't, then one must ask if they are really a friend. - I have also had to borrow money once for a non-trivial amount. My family, who can easily afford it, refused but a friend helped me at a critical juncture. I offered to make a contract but my friend said no, pay me back when you can. I have tried to start paying back a couple of times but my friend refused telling me to wait until I was more financially stable. - If I am ever lucky enough to be in the position my friend is in, I will emulate this behavior and do the very same thing - and love doing it all the while.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45185420c394230f6ea4c738968825fd",
"text": "To understand this fully one would need to understand quite a few things. Not in scope here. In short, whenever China sells goods to US, it gets USD as most of the trades are in USD. China uses this money to buy other things it needs like Oil etc. After this they still have quite a bit of USD left with them. The money is left with them because US is buying more things from China and selling less things to China. This creates a surplus USD with China. So if US were to borrow money from China or any other country, it would be this excess money. Ofcourse how money gets created in first place is a different topic altogether.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d0c732d4120cc999a357aa7c502dc79",
"text": "Yea, honestly taking in debt is pretty much never a good idea. Even borrowing from your own family can cause issues. It better be a very serious issue if you're trying to borrow and use money you don't have. Especially if we're talking about figured that are high relative to your income stream and/or that of the person you're borrowing from if it's not an official entity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f62e1d6e5427c04a8259add514d801be",
"text": "I struggle to see the value to this risk from the standpoint of your mother-in-law. This is not a small amount of money for a single person to lend to a single person ignoring your personal relationship. Right now, using a blended rate of about 8% and a 5 year payment period, your cost on that $50,000 is somewhere in the neighborhood of $11,000 with a monthly payment around $1,014. Using the same monthly payment but paying your MIL at 5% you'll complete the loan about 3.5 months sooner and save about $5,000, she will make about $6,000 in interest over 5 years against a $50,000 outlay. Alternatively, you can just prioritize payments to the more expensive loans. It's difficult to work out a total cost comparison without your expected payoff timelines and amount(s) you're currently paying toward all the loans. I'm sure a couple hours with a couple of spreadsheets could yield a plan that would net you a savings substantially close to the $5,000 you'd save by risking your mother in law's money. A lot of people think personal lending risk is about the relationship between the people involved, but there's more to it than that. It's not about you and your wife separating, it's not about the awkward dinner and conversations if you lose your job. Something might physically happen to you, you could become disabled or die. Right now, that's an extremely diversified and calculated risk taken by a gigantic lender. Unless your mother in law is very wealthy, this is not nearly enough reward to assume this sort of risk (in my opinion). Her risk FAR outpaces your potential five year savings. IF you wanted to pursue this as a means of paying interest to a family member rather than the bank, I'd only borrow an amount I budgeted and intended to pay within this single year. Say $10,000 against the highest interest loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1165f18fe6b2faae232ce9041dd42660",
"text": "I suppose it depends on the circumstances, but I wouldn't advise it. If you default on a loan to the bank it might ruin your credit, if you default to a family member it has the potential for much more damage in the form of fostering bad feelings and hurt the relationship.",
"title": ""
}
] | fiqa |
52052958fbad7566ee7853d334a54ff7 | Friend was brainwashed by MLM-/ponzi investment scam. What can I do? | [
{
"docid": "288d276228f14c790a00ed38f2cbcab0",
"text": "Go to the police. This is fraud and is illegal. Sure, this will hurt your friend but better now then when he starts abusing of his position to fraud even more people... Original comment by Bakuriu sorry for not giving credit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b93a0cb7b43428d2589f99299d68934",
"text": "\"If this is your friend, and he that convinced he will \"\"get rich\"\" from this then there's really nothing you CAN do. You've obviously done your best to explain the situation to him, but he's been caught up in their sales pitch, and that's more convincing to him. I worked in sales for many years, and the answers he gives you (the one about not needing to know the details of how your smartphone works is a classic variation of typical objection-handling that salespeople are taught) proves that he has been sucked in by their scheme. At this stage, all you're going to do is ruin your friendship with him if you continue to press the matter, because he has made it clear he can't be convinced that this is anything other than legitimate. The reality is, he is probably in too deep at this stage to just walk away from it, so he has to convince himself that he made a wise choice. Schemes like this use a \"\"scarcity\"\" approach (there's only so much to go around, and if you don't get yours now then someone else will get it) coupled with ego-boosting (boy, Mr. Prospect, this is such a great opportunity, and you're one of only a few who are sophisticated enough to understand and take advantage of it) to get people to lower their guard and not ask a whole lot of probing questions. Nobody wants to feel stupid, and they don't want others to think they're stupid, so these schemes will present the information in such a way that ordinarily prudent questions come across as sounding dumb, making the questioner seem not so smart. Rather than walking away from it, peoples' pride will sometimes make them double down on it, and they'll just go along with it to come across as though they get it, even when they really don't. The small payouts at early stages are a classic sign of a Ponzi scheme. Your friend will never listen to you as long as those little checks continue to come in, because to him they're absolute proof he's right and you're wrong. It's those checks (or payouts, however they're doing it) that will make him step up his efforts to recruit other people into the scheme or, worse yet, invest more of his own money into this. Keep in mind that in the end, you really have no power to do anything in this situation other than be his friend and try to use gentle persuasion. He's already made it clear that he isn't going to listen to your explanations about why this is a scam, for a couple reasons. First (and probably greatest), it would be an admission that he's dumb, or at least not as smart as you, and who wants that? Second, he continues to get little checks that reinforce the fact this must be \"\"real\"\", or why else would he be getting this money? Third, he has already demonstrated his commitment to this by quitting his job, so from his point of view, this has become an all-or-nothing ticket to wealth. The bottom line is, these schemes work because the sales pitch is powerful enough to overcome ordinary logic for people who think there just has to be an easy way to Easy Street. All you can do is just be there as his friend and hope that he sees the light before the damage (to himself and anyone else) gets too great. You can't stop him from what he's doing any more than you can stop the sun from rising as long the message (and checks) he's getting from other people keep him convinced he's on the right path. EDIT After reading the comments posted in this thread, I do want to amend my statements, because many good points have been raised here. You obviously can't just sit by and do nothing while your friend talks others into taking the same (or worse) risks that he is. That's not morally right by any measure At the same time however, be VERY careful about how you go about this. Your friend, as you stated, sounds pretty much like he's all in with this scheme, so there's definitely going to be some serious emotional commitment to it on his part as well. Anyone and everything that threatens what he sees as his ticket to Easy Street could easily become a target when this all comes crashing down, as it inevitably will. You could very well be the cause of that in his eyes, especially if he knows you've been discouraging people from buying into this nightmare. People are NOT rational creatures when it comes to money losses. It's called \"\"sunken costs\"\", where they'll continue to chase their losses on the rationale they'll make up for it if they just don't give up. The more your friend committed to this, the worse his anxieties about losing, so he'll do whatever he has to in order to save his position. This is what gamblers do and why the house does so well for itself. Some have suggested making anonymous flyers or other means of communicating that don't expose you as the person spreading the message, and that's one suggestion. However, the problem with this is that since the receiver has no idea who sent the message, they're not likely to give it the kind of credibility or notice that they would to something passed to them by a person they know and trust, and your anonymous message will have little weight in the face of the persuasive pitch that got your friend to commit his own money (and future). Another problem, as you've noted, is that you don't travel in the same circles as the people he's likely to recruit, so how would you go about warning them? How would they view their first contact with you when it comes with a message not to trust what someone else they already know is about to tell them? Would they write it off as someone who's butty? Hard to tell. Another huge ploy of these schemes is that they tend to preemptively strike at what you propose doing -- that is, warning people to stay away. They do this by projecting the people giving the warnings as losers who didn't see the opportunity for themselves and now want to keep others away from their own financial success. They'll portray you as someone who isn't smart enough to see this \"\"huge opportunity\"\", and since you can't understand it, you don't think anyone else does either. They'll point out that if you were so good with finances, why aren't you already successful? These guys are very good, and they have an answer for every objection you can raise, whether its to them or to someone else. They've spent a long time honing their message, which makes it difficult for anyone to say something persuasive enough to sway others away from being duped. This is a hard path, no doubt. I hope you are able to warn others away. Just be aware that it may come at a cost to you as well, and be prepared for what that might be. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "138650c4890cb9a76d2737a5d6ab1288",
"text": "\"I will disagree with some of the other answers here. In my view, the most important dimension of the situation is not your friend's potential loss but the potential losses of the people he may convince by using his position as youth group leader, etc., to draw more them into the scam. Exactly how to handle this depends on many factors that aren't mentioned in your question (and probably rightly so, as this aspect of the situation moves beyond personal finance). For instance, if your friend is a \"\"pillar of the community\"\" who is widely trusted, and you are not, there may be little you can do, since people will believe him and not you. If you have some influence over the groups he is trying to recruit, you can attempt to provide a counterweight to his recruitment activities. Again, how to do this depends on other factors, such as how he is recruiting them. If he is just privately contacting individuals and inviting them to these meetings, you may have to just keep your eyes peeled for anyone who seems tempted and try to dissuade them before they suffer the \"\"brainwashing\"\". If he actually tries to do some sort of public recruitment (e.g., holding a meeting himself), you could try to inject doubt by, e.g., attending and asking probing questions to expose the dangers. If you think the danger is widespread, you could consider taking some more public action, like writing a column in a local paper about this organization. Of course, another major factor is how much you think people stand to lose by this. However, in your question you indicated that your friend has invested \"\"multiple month or years of income\"\". If he intends to pressure others to invest similar amounts, this sounds to me like enough danger to warrant some preventive action. Few people can afford to lose months or years of income, and sadly those most vulnerable to a scammer's siren song are often those who can least afford it. It doesn't sound like a situation where you'd have to devote your life to the cause of stopping it, but if I knew that dozens of people in my community stood to lose years of income, I'd want to make at least a small effort to stop them, rather than just keep my mouth shut. In doing this, you may lose your friendship. However, you stated that your goal is to resolve the situation in a way that is \"\"best with lowest loss of money for everybody\"\". If you really take this utilitarian view, it is likely that you may have to give up on the friendship to prevent other people from losing more money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bdff9ed0ed8e5a4578c05b5668c99b8",
"text": "\"Even though this is really a psychology question, I'll try to give you an answer. You do nothing but stay away. What's going on is too small to matter. Bernie Madoff took investor's money and scammed them for $15B. That's B, billion, 9 zeros (Yes, I realize the UK Billion has 12, these are US Billion). Harry Markopolos was on to him, and presented his evidence to the government, but \"\"No one would listen.\"\" In quotes because that's the title of the book he published on his experience. Even Barron's had an article suggesting that Madoff's returns were impossible. Eventually, it came to light. In my own experience, there was a mortgage acceleration product called \"\"Money Merge Account.\"\" It claimed to help you pay off your mortgage in a fraction of the time \"\"with no change to your budget.\"\" For two years or so, I was obsessed with exposing this scam, and wrote articles, nearly every week discussing every aspect of this product. Funny how even though mortgages are math that's pretty easy to explain, few sellers wanted to talk about the math. Using the same logic that you don't need to understand how a car works as long as you know how to drive. There were some people that would write to tell me I saved them the $3500 cost of that product, but mostly I argued with sellers who dismissed every word I wrote as if the math were incomprehensible to anyone but the software guys who wrote it. In the end, I had compiled a PDF with over 60 pages of my writing on the topic, and decided to call it quits. The product was recycled and now is sold as \"\"Worth Unlimited,\"\" but the software is the same. This is all a tangent to your problem. It simply offers the fact that the big scam, Bernie, continued for a long time, and people who were otherwise intelligent, fell for his promises, and didn't want to believe otherwise. The mortgage software had many bloggers writing. Searching on the web found a lot of discussion, very easy to find. People will believe what they wish. Tell an Atheist that God exists, or a believer that He doesn't, and your words will fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately, this is no different.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc94e748641fbea1f9ec537de1b992ba",
"text": "\"First, there are MLM businesses that are legitimate and are not Ponzi schemes; I actually work with one (I will not name it lest I give the impression of trying to sell here). One thing I learned was how to respond when a prospect raises objections related to the actual scams, which are abundant; the answer being to point out, and you mentioned this yourself, that in an illegitimate scheme, there is no actual product being offered - the only thing money is ever spent on is the expectation of a future profit. Ask your friend, \"\"Would you buy the product this company sells, at the price they ask, if there were not a financial opportunity attached to it?\"\" If not, \"\"How can you expect anyone else to buy it from you?\"\" There are only 3 ways he can respond to this question: he can realize that you're right and get out now; he can change the subject to the concept of making money by climbing the ranks and earning off of a salesforce, in which case it's time to educate him on Ponzi; or he can claim to be able to sell something he doesn't believe in, in which case you should run fat, far away. If he does indicate that he would be a customer even without the chance to sell the product, then offer him the chance to prove it, by giving you one sales pitch on the condition that he is not allowed to breathe a word about joining the business. Do him the courtesy of listening with an open mind, and decide for yourself whether you could ever be a customer. If the possibility exists, even if not today, he has found one of the few legitimate MLM companies, and you should not try to stop him. If not, you'll have to determine whether it's because the product just isn't for you, or because it's inherently worthless, and whether you should encourage or discourage your friend going forward.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bc1ec1dffc69de084d9bb843f03b221",
"text": "\"So here's the sad truth. He might actually be making a return on his investment. Not because it's right or because the system works, but in all these schemes there are a range of people that actually do make money. In addition to that, there is that fact that he \"\"believes\"\" that he is doing a good thing, and is unwilling to discuss it. So, if he is making, even a tiny return, and really believes that he is making a large return, or that that large return is just around the bend, your never going to convince him otherwise. You have two real options; If he will listen, go though and look at money in v.s. money out. If money out is larger then money in, your screwed. Make sure to point out that he should look at real money in (left a bank account) and real money out (deposited to a bank account). Again be prepared for the fact that he is actually making money. Some people in the pyramid will make money, it's just never as much, or as many people as they make it out to be. Don't attack the system, attack other aspects. Try and argue liquidity, or FDIC insurance. Again not trying to show why the system is bad, but why a investment in foo instead may be better. If nothing else, go with diversify. Never put all your money in one spot, even if it's a really good spot. At least in that case he will have some money left over in the end. That said, your friend may not go for it. May just put on blinders, and may just stick finger in ears. Move to option two. Respect his wishes, and set boundaries. \"\"Ok, I hear you, you like system X, I won't bring it up again. Do me a favor, don't you bring it up again either. Let's just leave this with religion and politics.\"\" If he continues to bring it up, then when he does, just point out you agreed not to discuss the issue, and if he continues to push it, rethink your friendship. If you both respect one another, you should be able to respect each others' decisions. If you can't then, sadly, you may need to stop spending time with one another.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7164feb9ee4f3426bd83df83e9784f9",
"text": "I believe the only thing you haven't mentioned to him is the possibility that his activity is criminally fraudulent. I would sit him down, and say something substantially similar to the following: We've talked about your investment before, and I know you believe it's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that this is very likely fraudulent activity. I know you believe in it, but you've said you don't understand how or why it works. The problem with that is that if it is a fraud you can't protect yourself from criminal prosecution because you didn't understand what you were doing. The prosecutor will ask you if you asked others to give you or the organization money, and then they will convict you based on trying to defraud others. It doesn't matter whether you did it on purpose, or just because you believed the people you are investing in. So I very strongly advise you to understand exactly what the system is, and how it works, and then make sure with a lawyer that it's legal. If it is, then hey, you've learned something valuable. But if it's not, then you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble and anguish down the road if you step away before someone you attract to the investment decides to talk to their accountant or lawyer. A civil lawsuit may be bad, but if you're criminally prosecuted it will be so much worse. Now that I've said my piece, I won't talk to you about it anymore or bother you about it. I wish you luck, and hope that things work out fine. I wouldn't talk to the police or suggest that I'd do anything of that nature, without proof then there's no real way to start an investigation anyway, and unfortunately scams like this are incredibly hard to investigate, so the police often spend little to no time on them without a high level insider giving up evidence and associates. Chances are good nothing would happen to your friend - one day the organization will disappear and he won't recover any more money - but there's a distinct possibility that when that happens, the people below him will come for him, and he won't be able to look further up the chain for help. Perhaps the threat of illegal activity will be enough to prevent him from defrauding others, but if not I think at least you can let it go, and know that you've done everything for him that might work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f606940b8bf3f1e2be77666f0e26ffe5",
"text": "The title of your question basically asks: What can I do? And you state this regarding the meeting and “advice” they gave towards criticism of their method: While this they also indoctrinated that you should avoid talking to people talking bad about it (or say it is scam) because you gain no money from them and they just want to destroy your business. First, you really cannot do anything to “save” your friend if they have bought this nonsense. You are right, it’s a scam. But past stating as such to your friend, there is not much you can do past shielding yourself. The reality is this: Any scenario you are in where you cannot ask basic questions and get a reasonable response or are given—at least—the option to walk away unscathed or uninsulated is basically a cult-like mentality. Simple as that. If the first thing someone tells you is “Don’t listen to others, just listen to me…” then you need to excuse yourself to go to the bathroom or something and just leave. From my personal experience meeting people who are successful and have power, they always—and I mean always—ask questions and are critical of things they invest in… Whether that investment is time, money or just basic mental energy. Rich people are just like you and me! Except they have more money so they can take bigger risks. Critical thinking and the ability to walk away from something are key life skills. Now others have talked salesman psychology which is on point. But here is something else you brought up in your question: He also wants to use his position as respected member of multiple local youth and other communities to get their members as referals or in his words “…to give them the oppurtunity to also simply earn money.” Okay, so you can set personal boundaries between you and this clown, but you cannot stop him. But if he plans on targeting people and organizations in your community, you can warn them about him and his behavior and this scam. Chances are other people will know right away it’s a scam, but honestly if you feel the need to help others, that’s the most reasonable thing you can do to help them. But whatever you do, don’t take any of this emotional crap personally. If anything, maybe you can learn some reverse salesman techniques to get this “friend” to disengage. Such as only meeting with them in public and if they say something really vile to you, repeating what they said back to them as a question… Maybe even louder so everyone can hear. Remember a harsh reality of life: Public shaming can work to change someone’s behavior but you never want to do something like that unless you have utterly no choice. That last bit of advice is pretty harsh, but the reality is at some point you need to do something to “smack” reality into the situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cbe5453859af2169916484557119e0e",
"text": "As others have stated, it will be very difficult for you to turn your friend around. He has already demonstrated great commitment. What can I do? There may be other people (perhaps mutual friends of you and this man) who are in danger. He may try to get them into this (as he apparently tried to with you). If this was me, I would try to warn the mutual friends of me and him. It's easier to get to them before they have been exposed to the brainwashing. So I would: Yes, I realize this means you're going behind his back, talking to his friends, etc. But I believe these people also deserve to be warned. They are in danger of being adversely affected by what he is doing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dec1ba6f3dd47b30b895677f50e5cfc8",
"text": "Chances are high your friend isn't in it for the money, but the community or some vague dream of having a future income-generating side business because he can't get a loan for a 7-11 franchise. I run a few successful online businesses and had an import/export so naturally I run into these guys looking for advice on selling their MLM wares easier. I always point out they can make a lot of money cutting out the middle man MLM distributor and buy the same products from eBay or the same local supplier the MLM uses for a fraction of costs...then collect all the profit sans kickbacks to their host MLM goon/sponsor/father. I've never had anyone that bailed on the MLM, but I could see their eyes gloss over after they realized their own middle man is holding them back from making a lot of money (assuming they could offload that stuff). People actually in it for the money tend to bail (better sales job exist, MLM dreams don't pay rent, etc.) so you'll probably just need to isolate your friend from these losers somehow. You could investigate his sponsor and find out how much money he's actually making....if he tells your friend he's rich, but you find out he lives in the slums with his mom, your friend might bail on friendship/association with the group out of sheer disgust. It's the friends, not the logic you need to attack. His MLM friends would consider it a betrayal if he left them so you need to show him it's the MLM group that's betrayed his friendship. Point out all the long-term members driving junky cars to events who brag about their $$$. Laugh at the piss poor finance credentials of the local group leaders....ask where the investor perks are and suggest the sponsor/leaders are just hording them. Point out that he's a success and the fellow team members are just milking him to prop up their failing investments/sales/recruitment numbers. Nobody wants to let a team down....but the team isn't good enough for him. Deep down he knows the logic is questionable or at least risky/improbable, but his faith in the good intentions of his MLM cohorts is high.....crush that faith and all he's left with is bad finance tips or cheap protein shakes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7972dd39bc25c4136e567baa0e8857d9",
"text": "The one thing your friend needs to understand is for every dollar paid out, there is somebody paying that dollar in. The mark of a Ponzi scheme is that it feeds on itself. The stock market has trade volumes where it almost meets the definition of a Ponzi scheme. However, it deals with shares in actual production facilities (rather than only financial institutions) and provides means of production in return for large amounts of the profits. So there is someone legitimately expecting to pay back more than he gets out, in return for the availability of money at a time where he could not finance matters except by credit. With your friend's scheme, there is nobody expected to pay more than he gets out. Nail him down with that: every dollar paid out has to be paid in. Who is the one paying? At this point of time, it sounds like there will be two possible outcomes. You'll be visiting your friend in debtors' prison, or you'll visit him in criminal prison. If you highly value your friendship, you might get him out of the former with your own money. You won't be able with the latter. And if you let him exploit his standing for scamming his community, make no mistake, it will be the latter. I don't envy you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22a8ad978393dbd6e80020a151f705f7",
"text": "If this 'scam' has a name, address and/or phone number, I forward it to the FBI anonymously. That is my advice. You may also wish to consult a lawyer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ee8d4a941cc76b83c804066b7e40877",
"text": "Your friend is investing time & money in a business that does not list an address or phone number on its website, not even in its 'press kit'. Even when they make a press release about moving into a new building, it does not list the address or even the street! C'mon, this is obviously a scam. No real business acts like this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dbf1ca1216e00be176e51ba0e68045c",
"text": "I don't want to repeat things that have already been said as I agree with most of them. There's just one little thing I'd like to add: If things go the way we're all expecting, this guy will eventually be in desperate need of a friend as he is extremely likely to lose most of his friends sooner or later. Perhaps all you can do is signal that you will not support him now (for obvious reasons), but that you'll be there for him when he may need you in the future...",
"title": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "74a47b8b12f7afd06fd333b7b5426df5",
"text": "The thing that gets so many people is that multilevel marketing isn't inherently a scam. It has all of the potential that they try to sell you on. It just so happens that every friend you have doesn't have an infinite supply of friend networks completely unrelated to anyone you know, so once you get three or four people in the same area in on an MLM, or if you try to join not realizing that there are already people in on it, and ESPECIALLY if you get in on MLM without knowing ANYTHING about he product aside from the MLM opportunities for your potential marks, or without knowing anything about sales in general, then people start getting screwed. MLM is cancer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb78796e5f2623079542684e26439d8e",
"text": "I feel like the new mlm schemes are 'pay a thousand dollars for my blue print which will help you develop the business of your dreams and earn 100k a month!' A lady contacted me about training because she couldn't afford one of those 'courses'. And I was like a) I have ten years experience in this I did not decide to do it overnight and b) it's high pressure and stressful as f.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d85f2317a218c57cbb8d3f379432d4f9",
"text": "Sadly, the Executive and BOD cashed-in on this a long time ago. History tells us that any claw-backs that the courts seek will represent just a tiny fraction of the overall gains taken in by the scam. Equally sad, any further fines and penalties levied against WF will be taken out of the hides of the lowest level investors and employees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "895e63c8636a4fec7a755864ecc4eefb",
"text": "There are lots of answers here, but I'll add my two cents... The best way to win is not to play. MLM is not a viable business model. Don't go in thinking you'll beat the system by trying harder than everyone else. The only way you'll make any money is by recruiting lots of people, and selling products that can be obtained for cheaper elsewhere at a normal store. If your friend already committed to the decision and they're wise as to what's going on, yet gullible enough to try anyways, have them think about the ethics of exploiting the people down the pyramid from them. Maybe that will change their mind. All of the other answers about not investing too much of your own money remain true. You don't want to blow your life savings on a pipe dream.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6ea9d616b30c9973b74157e9df43187",
"text": "Guaranteed 8.2% annual return sounds too good to be true. Am I right? Are there likely high fees, etc.? You're right. Guaranteed annual return is impossible, especially when you're talking about investments for such a long period of time. Ponzi (and Madoff) schemed their investors using promises of guaranteed return (see this note in Wikipedia: In some cases returns were allegedly determined before the account was even opened.[72]). Her financial advisor doesn't charge by the hour--he takes a commission. So there's obviously some incentive to sell her things, even if she may not need them. Definitely not a good sign, if the advisor gets a commission from the sale then he's obviously not an advisor but a sales person. The problem with this kind of investment is that it is very complex, and it is very hard to track. The commission to the broker makes it hard to evaluate returns (you pay 10% upfront, and it takes awhile to just get that money back, before even getting any profits), and since you're only able to withdraw in 20 years or so - there's no real way to know if something wrong, until you get there and discover that oops- no money! Also, many annuity funds (if not all) limit withdrawals to a long period, i.e.: you cannot touch money for like 10 years from investment (regardless of the tax issues, the tax deferred investment can be rolled over to another tax deferred account, but in this case - you can't). I suggest you getting your own financial advisor (that will work for you) to look over the details, and talk to your mother if it is really a scam.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af7c5e4e1d4dac0d2cd9ce2faf49df5d",
"text": "\"Sounds like a Ponzi scheme, amplified by social media. Ponzi schemes always rely on some \"\"winners\"\" to say they are winners, so they can grow the pot. If you put in $100 and got out $120, that's the $20 the operator pays so that the next guy who puts in $100 gets back... zero.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aad964023bfe20997bec03f865987ce6",
"text": "\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb23133354ef50cc316f1e26656eef42",
"text": "Its not about her trying to fuck you over. Its about yourself, herself and her brother not taking into account the risk and assuming this is easy money. Legality is the easy part. Competing in the market and coming out on top is the hard part. There are probably hundreds of people just like her brother thinking that setting up a weed shop is a get rich quick scheme.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6656967ba487892e9921b4bb5f12ca72",
"text": "\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \"\"Scam\"\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6cd64b327e02bb97e1b3893e3d5adb2",
"text": "Apparently this stuff is through Amway, which screws all of the little guys over to help make somebody else a bunch of money. It's a load of bs you don't want to get involved with. Glad I found that out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d329e887d7499a6cd163013dc560b17",
"text": "\"The first question I have to ask is, why would your \"\"friend\"\" even be considering something so ridiculous? There are so many variations of the banking scam running around, and yet people can't seem to see them for what they are -- scams. The old saying \"\"there's no such thing as a free lunch\"\" really comes into play here. Why would anyone send you/your friend $3,000.00 just because they \"\"like you\"\"? If you can't come up with a rational answer to that question then you know what you (or your friend) should do -- walk away from any further contact with this person and never look back! Why? Well, the simple answer is, let's assume they DO send you $3,000.00 by some means. If you think there aren't strings attached then all hope is lost. This is a confidence scam, where the scammer wins your trust by doing something nobody would ever do if they were trying to defraud you. As a result, you feel like you can trust them, and that's when the games really begin. Ask yourself this -- How long do you think it will be (even assuming the money is sent) before they'll talk you into revealing little clues about yourself that allow them to develop a good picture of you? Could they be setting you up for some kind of identity theft scheme, or some other financial scam? Whatever it is, you'd better believe the returns for them far outweigh the $3,000.00 they're allegedly going to send, so in a sense, it's an investment for them in whatever they have planned for you down the road. PLEASE don't take the warnings you get about this lightly!!! Scams like this work because they always find a sucker. The fact that you're asking the question in the first place means you/your \"\"friend\"\" are giving serious thought to what was proposed, and that's nothing short of disaster if you do it. Leave it be, take the lesson for what it's worth before it costs you one red cent, and move on. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14fbd60f61528b74f681f6033acfc003",
"text": "The risk besides the extra interest is that you might be upside down on the loan. Because the car loses value the moment you drive off the lot, the slower you pay it off the longer it takes to get the loan balance below the resale value. Of course if you have a significant down payment, the risk of being upside down is not as great. Even buying a used car doesn't help because if you try to sell it back to the dealer the next week they wont give you the full price you paid. Some people try and split the difference, get the longer term loan, but then pay it off as quickly as the shorter term loan. Yes the interest rate is higher but if you need to drop the payment back to the required level you can do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9c509c589da4a1113de7886d63dc888",
"text": "Firstly, you haven't traded long enough. Secondly, you have just had a lot of luck that most of your trades came back. Thirdly, you should develop a trading strategy having entry rules, exit rules and risk management rules (never trade on margin without risk management or stop losses). Lastly, never trade on intuition or your emotions, stick to your plan, cut your losses small and early, and let your profits run.",
"title": ""
}
] | fiqa |
85e8f940ae1becfc90e973c64f3b020d | Joining a company being acquired | [
{
"docid": "641bd43f251dadbdf5ca1d0a1a7a0552",
"text": "\"Is there anything I need to ask or consider during my negotiation process based on the fact that they probably will soon be own by another company? Very tricky situation. You are being hired by one company, and one hiring manager. But you already know that there are big changes ahead. What you don't know is how all those changes will actually play out. You will at least end up working for a different company. I've worked for several companies in the past that were acquired, and some that acquired other companies. After each acquisition, the nature of the company changed significantly. Some teams were let go completely (often \"\"overhead\"\" departments like accounting, marketing, etc, that were handled at the corporate level), some teams were moved to a different location, others stayed the same. Sometimes management changed. In one case I was working for a new boss who worked out of the home office in another state. The time frame for these changes ranged from immediately, to several years after the acquisition. For me at least, some of the things that made the job appealing earlier typically were gone. Try as best you can to ask questions about the acquisition, and about the nature of the acquiring company. If they are allowed to tell you the name of the company that is acquiring them, do some searching. See if you can find out how the company typically deals with acquisitions - do they immediately let almost everyone go (keeping only the \"\"essential\"\" few), or do they run new acquisitions as separate divisions and leave them alone for at least a while? Try to find out from your hiring manager what their expectations are for your specific team post-acquisition. Try to find out if anything within your offer is subject to change, post-acquisition. Are you being hired under the old, pre-acquisition rules? Or under the new, post-acquisition rules? The fact that you even know the company is being acquired is good. Often, companies cannot even divulge that fact until very near the end. On the other hand your use of the phrase \"\"probably will soon\"\", makes me wonder how much is definite here. Here's something you might wish to read: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/20357/a-coworker-beat-me-to-resignation-how-can-i-resign-in-a-professional-manner\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50e54234a4e99e7bc7dca661b03ebffd",
"text": "The best answer I can give is - be prepared for change. There's no perfect question you can ask or assurance you can get prior to accepting the offer that will give you any particularly perfect security or sense of stability here. The company itself is going through a change of identity that can change how it will do business and even what the business is and how revenue is acquired. In the time of the acquisition your role within the company could change radically for better or worse, it could even be eliminated entirely. If that type of uncertainty doesn't appeal to you - don't take the position. If you are absolutely psyched about this job, the best thing you can do is to learn more about the business itself and see if you can make any educated bets about how your role will play into the changes in business strategy that will come with the acquisition.",
"title": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "28ec486934904404fe18e53cf843ce76",
"text": "\"Here is one \"\"other consideration\"\": don't, don't, don't sell based on insider information. Insider trading can land you in jail. And it's not restricted to top executives. Even overhearing a discussion about the current status of the acquisition talks can mean that you have insider information that you legally cannot act on in many jurisdictions. If you are just a regular employee, the SEC will likely not subject your dealings to special scrutiny, especially since lots of your colleagues will likely trade your company's shares at this point in time. And if you definitely hold insider info (for example, if you are intimately involved with the acquisition talks), you will likely have had a very serious warning about insider trading and know what you can and what you cannot do. Nevertheless, it's better to be careful here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c0f4d3144474b9d0a1a7381620979cc",
"text": "It depends on the timing of the events. Sometimes the buying company announces their intention but the other company doesn't like the deal. It can go back and forth several times, before the deal is finalized. The specifics of the deal determine what happens to the stock: The deal will specify when the cutoff is. Some people want the cash, others want the shares. Some will speculate once the initial offer is announced where the final offer (if there is one) will end up. This can cause a spike in volume, and the price could go up or down. Regarding this particular deal I did find the following: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/expedia-to-acquire-orbitz-worldwide-for-12-per-share-in-cash-300035187.html Additional Information and Where to Find It Orbitz intends to file with the SEC a proxy statement as well as other relevant documents in connection with the proposed transaction with Expedia. The definitive proxy statement will be sent or given to the stockholders of Orbitz and will contain important information about the proposed transaction and related matters. SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT CAREFULLY WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The proxy statement and other relevant materials (when they become available), and any other documents filed by Expedia or Orbitz with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov. In addition, security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the proxy statement from Orbitz by contacting Investor Relations by mail at ATTN: Corporate Secretary, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 1000, Chicago, Illinois 60661.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3f2365912ad92fdb6806f5009bb20a8",
"text": "As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d64cc61d51f6e72fa565a083d8f3bf26",
"text": "MattMcA definitely gave you excellent advice and said a lot of what I would say to you. Most databases that are going to give you the most comprehensive information, but in a well formatted way, are going to require subscriptions or a fee. You should try to visit a library, especially one at a university, because they may likely have free access for you. At my alma mater the preferred database among students was LexisNexis Corporate Affiliations. http://www.corporateaffiliations.com/ With this company directory, you get public and private company profiles. You can use Corporate Affiliation’s MergerTrak™ and get full coverage on current and past mergers and acquisitions. I definitely think this is a business database you should look into. You have nothing to lose seeing as they have a free trial. Just to add, there’s always a business news feed on the homepage. As I just checked now, this one caught my interest: For Marvel Comics, A Renewed Digital Mission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec2cecd148f5a36061685e5c592c6bf3",
"text": "I found the following on a stock to mutual conversion for insurance firms for Ohio. Pulling from that link, Any domestic stock life insurance corporation, incorporated under a general law, may become a mutual life insurance corporation, and to that end may carry out a plan for the acquisition of shares of its capital stock, provided such plan: (A) Has been adopted by a vote of a majority of the directors of such corporation; (B) Has been approved by a vote of stockholders representing a majority of the capital stock then outstanding at a meeting of stockholders called for the purpose; (C) Has been approved by a majority of the policyholders voting at a meeting of policyholders called for the purpose, each of whom is insured in a sum of at least one thousand dollars and whose insurance shall then be in force and shall have been in force for at least one year prior to such meeting. and Any stockholder who has assented to the plan or who has been concluded by the vote of the assenting stockholders, and any stockholder who has objected and made demand in writing for the fair cash value of his shares subsequent to which an agreement has been reached fixing such fair cash value, but who fails to surrender his certificates for cancellation upon payment of the amount to which he is entitled, may be ordered to do so by a decree of the court of common pleas for the county in which the principal office of such corporation is located after notice and hearing in an action instituted by the corporation for that purpose, and such decree may provide that, upon the failure of the stockholder to surrender such certificates for cancellation, the decree shall stand in lieu of such surrender and cancellation. Since they successfully became a mutual insurance company, I would guess that those stocks were acquired back by the company, and are leftover from the conversion. They would not represent an ownership in the company, but might have value to a collector.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "915e6ec3c328a2e4c2e8506fe7bc97cb",
"text": "\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27f9a983c9f3d7c33a93dfd9dbe49aef",
"text": "It depends on the firm. I was interviewing with a few PE firms a few months ago, and the structure can vary. Some were definitely just LBO shops where the bulk of the staff were focused just on the deal. I remember a couple, however, that placed a lot of emphasis on getting in-house after the deal and performing what ultimately amounted to long term management consulting. These firms tended to hold companies for like 10+ years iirc. It sounds like there might be options out there in line with your passions, you just need to be pretty picky with the firm you join. I only remember one firm's name off the top of my head, but I'd be happy to pm it to you if you want to do some more research yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e11be041a4602cb98ea6178e945d96c5",
"text": "\"I think the best advice you could get would be to find a lawyer. If that foreign company has any presence in the US, they should be the ones signing off as the successor, otherwise you may find yourself in a limbo that would require some legal assistance. Generally, in most States a Corporation cannot be dissolved without resolving issues like this, which is probably why they told you \"\"the plan is terminating\"\". Someone asked them to terminate it. You need to find that someone.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb01897442967732700188d70b1e2d55",
"text": "This is only one of a series of questions your friend needs to understand. They will also need to know what happens to: vacation balances; the vacation earning schedule; retirement fund matching; the pension program; all the costs and rules regarding health, dental and vision;life insurance amounts. Some of these can be changed immediately. Some will not be changed this year because of IRS regulations. Everything can be changed by the next year. But there is no way to know if they will change a little a possible or as much a possible. It will depend on if they are buying the company, or if the company is going out of business and the new company is buying the remnants. They may also be essentially terminating the employees at the old place, and giving them the first opportunity for interviews. If they are essentially quitting they will not have to continue paying into the plan. The bad news is that their last day of work is also probably their last day to incur expenses that they can pay for with the flexible plan. If They are being purchased or absorbed the company will likely make no changes to the current plan, and fold them into the plan next year. I have been involved with company purchases and company splits, and this is how it was handled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94ca522ac3e692fc40a81e334445cace",
"text": "\"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees \"\"share options\"\" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a \"\"strike price\"\" specified when the option is granted. Typically these \"\"vest\"\" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23cee925ddbb4a7e32c9671b6bf45718",
"text": "It depends. If you accept the offer, then your stock will cease existing. If you reject the offer, then you will become a minority shareholder. Depending on the circumstances, you could be in the case where it becomes illegal to trade your shares. That can happen if the firm ceases to be a public company. In that case, you would discount the cash flows of future dividends to determine worth because there would be no market for it. If the firm remained public and also was listed for trading, then you could sell your shares although the terms and conditions in the market would depend on how the controlling firm managed the original firm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e97dd86a3520192f5e14722856c990a9",
"text": "\"It is not a \"\"riskless\"\" transaction, as you put it. Whenever you own shares in a company that is acquiring or being acquired, you should read the details behind the deal. Don't make assumptions just based on what the press has written or what the talking heads are saying. There are always conditions on a deal, and there's always the possibility (however remote) that something could happen to torpedo it. I found the details of the tender offer you're referring to. Quote: Terms of the Transaction [...] The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the valid tender of sufficient shares, which, when added to shares owned by Men’s Wearhouse and its affiliates, constitute a majority of the total number of common shares outstanding on a fully-diluted basis. Any shares not tendered in the offer will be acquired in a second step merger at the same cash price as in the tender offer. [...] Financing and Approvals [...] The transaction, which is expected to close by the third quarter of 2014, is subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Act. Both Men’s Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank are working cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission to obtain approval of the transaction as soon as possible. [...] Essentially, there remains a small chance that one of these \"\"subject to...\"\" conditions fails and the merger is off. The chance of failure is likely perceived as small because the market price is trading close to the deal price. When the deal vs. market price gap is wider, the market would be less sure about the deal taking place. Note that when you tender your shares, you have not directly sold them when they are taken out of your account. Rather, your shares are being set aside, deposited elsewhere so you can no longer trade them, and later, should the conditions be satisfied, then you will be paid for your shares the deal price. But, should the deal fall apart, you are likely to get your shares deposited back into your account, and by that time their market value may have dropped because the price had been supported by the high likelihood of the transaction being completed. I speculated once on what I thought was a \"\"sure deal\"\": a large and popular Canadian company that was going to be taken private in a leveraged buyout by some large institutional investors with the support of major banks. Then the Global Financial Crisis happened and the banks were let off the hook by a solvency opinion. Read the details here, and here. What looked like a sure thing wasn't. The shares fell considerably when the deal fell apart, and took about four years to get back to the deal price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "302c61b590ca3faf629e6dea9041552a",
"text": "isn't it still a dilution of existing share holder stock value ? Whether this is dilution or benefit, only time will tell. The Existing value of Facebook is P, the anticipated value after Watsapp is P+Q ... it may go up or go down depending on whether it turns out to be the right decision. Plus if Facebook hadn't bought Watsapp and someone else may have bought and Facebook itself would have got diluted, just like Google Shadowed Microsoft and Facebook shadowed Google ... There are regulations in place to ensure that there is no diversion of funds and shady deals where only the management profits and others are at loss. Edit to littleadv's comments: If a company A is owned by 10 people for $ 10 with total value $100, each has 10% of the share in the said company. Now if a Company B is acquired again 10 ea with total value 100. In percentage terms everyone now owns 5% of the new combined company C. He still owns $10 worth. Just after this acquisition or some time later ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16d613be361973044b4f7d4185a95491",
"text": "Obviously, there's some due diligence and quantitative analysis. However, it's mostly just what they can secure, for how much and how quickly. For instance, if you had a bakery that was netting 200,000/yr and needed 750,000 to open a new location. The bank will give you the loan over 10 years at 1.1%. Well, it's probably a good idea to take on debt. That's 6938 a month (I think). Edit: Or issue debt yourself. However, let's say you're merging with someone in the same industry. They have a market cap of 10 billion. Your company has a market cap of 62 billion and revenue of 11.8 billion a year. It's probably a good idea to secure with equity. Especially because you believe the merger will help you expand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b54284dec28913e221731174dbe2fe02",
"text": "Seems a little early. Here's my advice: if you don't feel ready, you're probably not completely ready. In that case, it would probably be best if you worked as the assistant to the president of your business for a while to learn the ins and outs. Even if you are confident, keep the current president around to help. Maybe they can occupy the vice president position while you take over ownership. You'll want somebody there who knows what's up when shit hits the fan.",
"title": ""
}
] | fiqa |
b7854aef3cea96ae4c014275ba501e26 | Is an analyst's “price target” assumed to be for 12 months out? | [
{
"docid": "f0e97da6a1332f123f9e670ed9c6443e",
"text": "I wouldn't put too much stock in the guidance generically... it's more a measure of confidence in the company. When you listen to the earnings calls and start following a particular analyst, you'll understand where they come from when they kick out a number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78befdefe3293d15a9d7b64241702147",
"text": "\"If the time horizon is not indicated, this is just a \"\"fair price\"\". The price of the stock, which corresponds with the fair value of the whole company. The value, which the whole business is worth, taking into consideration its net income, current bonds yield, level of risk of the business, perspective of the business etc.. The analyst thinks the price will sooner or later hit the target level (if the price is high, investors will exit stocks, if the price is cheap, investors will jump in), but no one knows, how much time will it take.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0986ce939912bb6f607dfae68cc0f55",
"text": "The time horizon applicable to the price target is always specified by the broker or bank which published the research report. You will find this information in the disclaimer, which is present on every research report. Usually it is 12 months, but some firms give 6 months price targets. However, you should never rely on the price target alone and always combine it with the following details (to name a few): Are the analyst's estimate above or below consensus estimates (or company guidance), did the analyst rise or lower its estimates. What is the rating on the stock (Buy, Sell, Hold...), when did he change his rating or price target. Does the firm do business with the company? (which may influence a bullish tone and optimistic price target).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83cdc3f29e96ce627f0bb5369a48319f",
"text": "I don't think you can always assume a 12-month time horizon. Sometimes, the analyst's comments might provide some color on what kind of a time horizon they're thinking of, but it might be quite vague.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3e982ca5500dd5bdf4a1e4e52d5a65a",
"text": "Most commonly, unless you read 'fair value target price,' an analyst's target price is a 12-month target price. Typically, there is a firm wide policy determining which time horizon to use. No analyst would provide an open ended target price, it doesn't make any sense (you discount cash flows to a certain period, adjust for inflation, etc). So there is always a time horizon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1d17cab7820e2dde13a9add87fa3ebb",
"text": "Analysts normally (oxymoron here) gauge their targets on where the stock is currently and more importantly where it has been. Except for in the case of say a Dryships where it was a hundred dollar stock and is now in the single digits, it is safe to assume that Apple for instance was well over $ 700 and is now at $500, and that a price guidance of $ 580 is not that remarkable and a not so difficult level to strike. Kind of like a meteorologist; fifty percent chance of rain. Analysts and weathermen.Hard to lose your job when your never really wrong. Mr Zip, Over and outta here",
"title": ""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "c189277f36f28c2d2c117dbfbf90c88c",
"text": "\"Systemic and well know patterns in sales are priced in to the security. Typically companies with very cyclical earnings like this will issue guidance of earnings per share within a range. These expected earnings are priced in before the earnings are actually booked. If a company meets these expectations the stock will likely stay relatively flat. If the company misses this expectation, the stock, generally, will get slammed. This kind of Wall Street behavior typically mystifies media outlets when a company's stock declines after reporting a record high level of whatever metric. The record high is irrelevant if it misses the expectation. There is no crystal ball but if something is both well known and expected it's already been \"\"priced in.\"\" If the well known expected event doesn't occur, maybe it's a new normal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b9ae35eb128a2fcc6a93a1cd48c9cae",
"text": "The indication is based on the average Buy-Hold-Sell rating of a group of fundamental analysts. The individual analysts provide a Buy, Hold or Sell recommendation based on where the current price of the stock is compared to the perceived value of the stock by the analyst. Note that this perceived value is based on many assumptions by the analyst and their biased view of the stock. That is why different fundamental analysts provide different values and different recommendations on the same stock. So basically if the stock's price is below the analyst's perceived value it will be given a Buy recommendation, if the price is equal with the perceived value it will be given a Hold recommendation and if the price is more than the perceived value it will be given a Sell recommendation. As the others have said this information IMHO is useless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e090411bf34d3e1a21c664640f3d881",
"text": "Graphs are nothing but a representation of data. Every time a trade is made, a point is plotted on the graph. After points are plotted, they are joined in order to represent the data in a graphical format. Think about it this way. 1.) Walmart shuts at 12 AM. 2.)Walmart is selling almonds at $10 a pound. 3.) Walmart says that the price is going to reduce to $9 effective tomorrow. 4.) You are inside the store buying almonds at 11:59 PM. 5.) Till you make your way up to the counter, it is already 12:01 AM, so the store is technically shut. 6.) However, they allow you to purchase the almonds since you were already in there. 7.) You purchase the almonds at $9 since the day has changed. 8.) So you have made a trade and it will reflect as a point on the graph. 9.) When those points are joined, the curves on the graph will be created. 10.) The data source is Walmart's system as it reflects the sale to you. ( In your case the NYSE exchange records this trade made). Buying a stock is just like buying almonds. There has to be a buyer. There has to be a seller. There has to be a price to which both agree. As soon as all these conditions are met, and the trade is made, it is reflected on the graph. The only difference between the graphs from 9 AM-4 PM, and 4 PM-9 AM is the time. The trade has happened regardless and NYSE(Or any other stock exchange) has recorded it! The graph is just made from that data. Cheers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27c3de65dd0a09a5e8bfd62482094d7f",
"text": "\"> Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. > If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. > No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. > Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market. Only partly right. Sell side price targets are bullshit. Literally everyone knows this. The reason there is value isn't because of their predictions but because of everything else. [Here's another professional's opinion as well:](http://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/27dokr/aapl_proves_wall_street_is_nuts/chzy78s?context=3) > If we're talking about sell-side institutional analysts, then this is not necessarily correct. It's just that the retail sector seems to only give a shit about the forecasts/conclusions (\"\"ohhh DB says buy xyz with target of xx.xx!\"\"). This goes to show how ignorant retail is when it comes to what the actual value of sell-side research reports are. > Sell-side research isn't valuable for buy-side because of the recommendations.. those are in fact the most ignored aspect of published research. It's valuable for buy-side because of the content. Sell-side analysts do the bullshit grind in investigating underlying information (such as visits to operational endeavors and clawing together bulk data). Buy side uses this underlying accrued data to formulate their own conclusions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6910613137c444c85fb4e476e25872dc",
"text": "I have heard of this, but then the broker is short the shares if they weren't selling them out of inventory, so they still want to accumulate the shares or a hedge before EOD most likely - In that case it may not be the client themselves, but that demand is hitting the market at some point if there isn't sufficient selling volume. Whether or not the broker ends up getting all of them below VWAP is a cost of marketing for them, how they expect to reliably get real size below vwap is my question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c13c73a337f0b416dd0e626ae4d9b7cf",
"text": "To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e565dff7908157a23a049aca8e6aa30",
"text": "No, and using a 37 year old formula in finance that is as simple as: should make it obvious technical analysis is more of a game for retail traders than investment advice. When it comes to currencies, there are a myriad of macroeconomic occurrences that do not follow a predictable timescale. Using indicators like RSI on any time frame will not magically illuminate broad human psychology and give you an edge. It is theoretically possible for a single public stock's price to be driven by a range of technical traders who all buy at RSI 30 and sell at RSI 70, after becoming a favorite stock on social media, but it is infinitely more likely for all market participants to have completely different goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c41e61f063420043ec5dd6378082c882",
"text": "\"As I understand it, Implied Volatility represents the expected gyrations of an options contract over it's lifetime. No, it represents that expected movement of the underlying stock, not the option itself. Yes, the value of the option will move roughly in the same direction the value of the stock, but that's not what IV is measuring. I even tried staring at the math behind the Options pricing model to see if that could make more sense for me but that didn't help. That formula is correct for the Black-Scholes model - and it is not possible (or at least no one has done it yet) to solve for s to create a closed-form equation for implied volatility. What most systems do to calculate implied volatility is plug in different values of s (standard deviation) until a value for the option is found that matches the quoted market value ($12.00 in this example). That's why it's called \"\"implied\"\" volatility - the value is implied from market prices, not calculated directly. The thing that sticks out to me is that the \"\"last\"\" quoted price of $12 is outside of the bid-ask spread of $9.20 to $10.40, which tells me that the underlying stock has dropped significantly since the last actual trade. If the Implied Vol is calculated based on the last executed trade, then whatever algorithm they used to solve for a volatility that match that price couldn't find a solution, which then choose to show as a 0% volatility. In reality, the volatility is somewhere between the two neighbors of 56% and 97%, but with such a short time until expiry, there should be very little chance of the stock dropping below $27.50, and the value of the option should be somewhere around its intrinsic value (strike - stock price) of $9.18.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30eb3402c667559e3f4a8a0ea9a19d2b",
"text": "I don't believe most do it on purpose. Its a function of two things. 1) Markets are relatively efficient, so generating profits off of publicly available information is rare. 2) Analysts cannot ethically nor legally make recommendation based on material non-public information. That leaves them with using public information and building out s model to estimate earnings and therefore share price as best as possible. The problem is that estimating earnings is notoriously difficult. Every model is subject to garbage-in-garbage-out. All analysts start with some of the same basic assumptions and then tweak them based on their best guess. Take enough analysts and you've now replicated roughly what all investors are doing in the marketplace, meaning as a whole analysts won't be more accurate than the market. The only way to generate above market returns is for you to consistently pick the analyst with the right recommendation. If only it were so easy... Furthermore, analysts tend to make similar recommendations due to biases. Their initial model may have said 'buy' for GE, but they realize no other analysts have a buy rating on the stock. They're more likely to go back and revise their guesses to something more inline with their peers - its less risky to be with the crowd! TL;DR Security selection is hard and outperformance without MNP is unlikely over the long term. I am no longer in the industry. After 2.5yrs as an analyst and going through the CFA curriculum I've learned that there are VERY few opportunities for out performance, especially so on a risk adjusted basis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a82bece8a7b6c04dce89b387fe72c88e",
"text": "To get the probability of hitting a target price you need a little more math and an assumption about the expected return of your stock. First let's examine the parts of this expression. IV is the implied volatility of the option. That means it's the volatility of the underlying that is associated with the observed option price. As a practical matter, volatility is the standard deviation of returns, expressed in annualized terms. So if the monthly standard deviation is Y, then Y*SQRT(12) is the volatility. From the above you can see that IV*SQRT(DaysToExpire/356) de-annualizes the volatility to get back to a standard deviation. So you get an estimate of the expected standard deviation of the return between now and expiration. If you multiply this by the stock price, then you get what you have called X, which is the standard deviation of the dollars gained or lost between now and expiration. Denote the price change by A (so that the standard deviation of A is X). Note that we seek the expression for the probability of hitting a target level, Q, so mathematically we want 1 - Pr( A < Q - StockPrice) We do 1 minus the probability of being below this threshold because cumulative distribution functions always find the probability of being BELOW a threshold, not above. If you are using excel and assuming a mean of zero for returns, the probability of hitting or exceeding Q at expiration, then, is That's your answer for the probability of exceeding Q. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. You'd have to specify a criterion by which to judge it to know the answer. I'm sure more sophisticated methods exist that are more unbiased and have less error, but I think it's a fine first approximation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2897001493318a038f0ffc2ddc37a741",
"text": "\"@jlowin's answer has a very good discussion of the types of PE ratio so I will just answer a very specific question from within your question: And who makes these estimates? Is it the market commentators or the company saying \"\"we'd expected to make this much\"\"? Future earnings estimates are made by professional analysts and analytical teams in the market based on a number of factors. If these analysts are within an investment company the investment company will use a frequently updated value of this estimate as the basis for their PE ratio. Some of these numbers for large or liquid firms may essentially be generated every time they want to look at the PE ratio, possibly many times a day. In my experience they take little notice of what the company says they expect to make as those are numbers that the board wants the market to see. Instead analysts use a mixture of economic data and forecasting, surveys of sentiment towards the company and its industry, and various related current events to build up an ongoing model of the company's finances. How sophisticated the model is is dependent upon how big the analytics team is and how much time resource they can devote to the company. For bigger firms with good investor relations teams and high liquidity or small, fast growing firms this can be a huge undertaking as they can see large rewards in putting the extra work in. The At least one analytics team at a large investment bank that I worked closely with even went as far as sending analysts out onto the streets some days to \"\"get a feeling for\"\" some companies' and industries' growth potential. Each analytics team or analyst only seems to make public its estimates a few times a year in spite of their being calculated internally as an ongoing process. The reason why they do this is simple; this analysis is worth a lot to their trading teams, asset managers and paying clients than the PR of releasing the data. Although these projections are \"\"good at time of release\"\" their value diminishes as time goes on, particularly if the firm launches new initiatives etc.. This is why weighting analyst forecasts based on this time variable makes for a better average. Most private individual investors use an average or time weighted average (on time since release) of these analyst estimates as the basis for their forward PE.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d4816f3537f902bd6f075b31278133",
"text": "Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d82c6862e9923c14d6fea3afb7cf9f6",
"text": "\">Your line of reasoning is why you should have a timeline on a prediction. It's been, what, 12 years now of near constant assertions that huge inflation is just right around the corner. How long should we wait for it? Just long enough so that when it happens, you can claim that \"\"Shit! No one could have predicted THAT.\"\" >to keep the inflation, which there is absolutely no sign of whatsoever Wow. The blindness. It HAS to be willful.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f2a3af6526fd4b4e1134e9c460ed9f6",
"text": "The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent -John Maynard Keynes The stocks could stagnate and trade in a thin range, or decline in value. You assume that your stocks will offer you ANY positive return for every month over 24 months. Just one month of negative returns puts you underwater. Thats whats wrong with it. Even if you identified any stock that has been up every month for a consecutive 24 months in the past, there is nothing that says it will be so in the future, and a broad market selloff will effect both indexes as well as individual stocks. Literally any adverse macroeconomic event in the next two years will put you underwater on your loan, no matter how much research you do on individual stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6ec4c6e33b1f072622f1c14cf686071",
"text": "Paytrust seems to be the only game in town. We've changed banks several times over the last 15 years and I can tell you that using a bank's bill pay service locks you in, big time. I loved paytrust because I could make one change if we changed banks. If you're using a bank directly for your bills, the ides of recreating your payee list is daunting.",
"title": ""
}
] | fiqa |
7d4694058cc53c504bcbfea1ecd1e7d9 | Are Index Funds really as good as “experts” claim? | [{"docid":"6e4f01017045a7b9ef74ebae91eacf5a","text":"\"I actually love this question, and have hashe(...TRUNCATED) | [{"docid":"a5c828411013510f191bb0f58be880db","text":"I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're us(...TRUNCATED) | fiqa |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 118