Datasets:

---

nthakur

/

bge-retrieval-data-finance-50K

like 0

[ { "docid": "8e31f9a452a967f889442863ca55440f", "text": "From http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Fundamentals The facts that affect a company's underlying value. Examples of business fundamentals include debt, cash flow, supply of and demand for the company's products, and so forth. For instance, if a company does not have a sufficient supply of products, it will fail. Likewise, demand for the product must remain at a certain level in order for it to be successful. Strong business fundamentals are considered essential for long-term success and stability. See also: Value Investing, Fundamental Analysis. For a stock the basic fundamentals are the second column of numbers you see on the google finance summary page, P/E ratio, div/yeild, EPS, shares, beta. For the company itself it's generally the stuff on the 'financials' link (e.g. things in the quarterly and annual report, debt, liabilities, assets, earnings, profit etc.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ed8ac5cafaa4a0d9cf5ad7b74ff04938", "text": "\"As other people have posted starting with \"\"fictional money\"\" is the best way to test a strategy, learn about the platform you are using, etc. That being said I would about how Fundamental Analysis works . Fundamental Analysis is the very basis of learning about an assets true value is priced. However in my humble opinion, I personally just stick with Index funds. In layman's terms Index Funds are essentially computer programs that buy or sell the underlying assets based on the Index they are associated with in the portion of the underlying index. Therefore you will usually be doing as good or as bad as the market. I personally have the background, education, and skillsets to build very complex models to do fundamental analysis but even I invest primarily in index funds because a well made and well researched stock model could take 8 hours or more and Modern Portfolio Theory would suggest that most investors will inevitably have a regression to the mean and have gains equal to the market rate or return over time. Which is what an index fund already does but without the hours of work and transaction cost.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c273003dc6bb4bc0fda17ca3b38d53b0", "text": "\"Your comment is more related to economics rather than finance. You're right that with conventional, everyday goods that \"\"value\"\" is an entirely subjective thing. Economists formalize this idea with the notion that people's preferences determine market prices. In finance, though, \"\"fundamental value\"\" relates to the value of the cash-flows produced by a financial asset. In Marxian terms, we're talking about exchange value - what can I get if I take this bond/stock and sell it. The value I get should be equivalent to the monetary value of the cashflows produced by that asset over time, discounting for uncertainty, etc. So, \"\"fundamental value\"\" is a bit more objective in finance since these things produce something quasi-objective - cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56815446ee85684b1e933f6502565d5f", "text": "Triple Bottom Line places a special focus on preserving a wide technical skill set, while retaining an exceptional level of technical expertise, which enables the company to fulfill its mission. Triple Bottom Line offers our clients a broad spectrum of mobile application development services. We have team of dedicated developers specializing in Android , iPhone, Symbian, iPad, tablets, Blackberry, JQuery, Titanium, C+, Javascript, html5, Facebook Apps, Twitter Apps, Palm, Android TV apps, Apple's iTV, and Web design and development. We can also put your app in the Barnes and Nobles' Nook, Amazon's and other bookstore's Kindle, AT&T's U-verse TV with our approved developer accounts. We are specialists in various API and SDK integration including AT&T, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Paypal, among many more. Our services create affordable development for corporate clients and development firms. We provide solutions at an affordable price with superior quality. Contact us for a quote to see how affordable it will be to complete your mobile application needs with alacrity. Visit our website @ http://tbldevelopmentfirm.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e0be7ab0b5c4a8ad8dee1636aa05953", "text": "\"Synergy is when a relationship makes its members stronger. \"\"Relationships\"\" doesn't cut it. Results and [ROI](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp) are very different. If a subordinate brings an insignificant problem to their manager, \"\"be realistic\"\" doesn't have quite the kick that \"\"deal with it\"\" does, IMO, but I'll give it to you. I'm not sure what you're getting at with \"\"Expectations? Goals?\"\", but managing expectations is conveyed in neither. Your terms do not suffice, and your lack of understanding leads me to believe that you're either really junior or not in business at all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3d0faea96982b5a5ffaa1971f1df44c", "text": "No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a39b37febb386d8d25976b32ed6e7097", "text": "all of these examples are great if you actually believe in fundamentals, but who believes in fundamentals alone any more? Stock prices are driven by earnings, news, and public perception. For instance, a pharma company named Eyetech has their new macular degeneration drug approved by the FDA, and yet their stock price plummeted. Typically when a small pharma company gets a drug approved, it's off to the races. But, Genetech came out said their macular degeneration drug was going to be far more effective, and that they were well on track for approval.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68ad2d6cc4afb29c1b2f1b4a8f0d38f1", "text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f359098fd69ea33661b6f8f5533514", "text": "Google Portfolio does the job: https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio You can add transaction data, view fundamentals and much more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0526e7431f71287e6672e599e85d48e", "text": "\"Is english not your first language? I'm not trying to be rude i just want to understand if the difficulty in communicating with you comes from a language barrier or something else. Finance and accounting knowledge are things people go to university for years for, just to learn the basics to get in the door. What you're asking requires years of experience and earned expertise. The expectation that you can just post here with some questions and suddenly have enough of a grasp to become a decision maker with respect to these situations is borderline offensive to professionals like myself. Either you need this knowledge for a practical application, or an academic pursuit. It seems to be the latter given your previous message. There are textbooks dedicated to what you're asking about, if you are really serious about learning then go pick them up and put in the hours necessary just like anyone else. Otherwise stop wasting peoples time on here. If you have one or two small questions to help clarify something you've been self studying that's fine, but honestly coming on here and asking \"\"how can a company issue bonds and what are bonds is it like a mortgage\"\" is absolutely a waste of time and reeks of laziness on your part.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "444b5c847964ff77552b194814e3ac68", "text": "\"Spoken like a true non-business person. I'm an engineer that now has an MBA. It's not \"\"fluff\"\", far from it. In fact, I'm doing more quantitative work now than I did as an engineer. I use MATLAB and Excel more than I ever did before. And I'm in marketing, one of the less quantitative MBA jobs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "374e6710563e24b0d8106fb204e53dd2", "text": "Not sure why people are suggesting CFP or CFA to someone who hasn't graduated with a BS yet. With that said, CFA had a claritas (fundamentals course) with like 20-20 page chapters going over basic finance and investment info. Pretty sure you can still get those pdfs for free. Investopedia is also great for general concepts for banking and investments. CFA is very expensive and I wouldn't touch it until you've taken general business classes and really built up your foundation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba5bf7b67849af2a301c29a925ef0c59", "text": "The technical skills (excel, matlab, econometrics) others posted are absolutely essential, but I have seen a ton of world class number crunchers who could not put anything in context. My advice: - Read any annual report for any company you find somewhat interesting, aim for reading 2 or 3 a week. This is the best way to learn real world macro economics and get a very strong grasp on financial accounting - Practice writing about what you learn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f223dd9cf545da0fdadcbc3847f769e", "text": "Basically you'd take all the companies in a given universe (like the S&P 500 or the Russell 3000) and instead of weighting them by market cap as they are currently done, you would weight by an alternative measure. Right now, if you're invested in an index that is market cap weighted, you're effectively momentum chasing. If a stock runs up, you're going to have a higher weight in your portfolio because of it (but only after the increase). An alternative that OppenheimerFunds has come up with is using revenue-weighting. That way you're using company fundamentals and only when the fundamentals are improving do you increase the weight in your portfolio. I haven't yet seen any research that explores weighting by other fundamentals. I would think that revenues aren't perfect either and that you might want to weight by Net Income. Or to go several steps further, by year over year Free Cash Flow growth. It could be a seminal paper if you are the one who empirically identifies a better weighting methodology and then have everyone else fight over the theoretical underpinnings. This is effectively what goes into Smart Beta investing: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smart-beta.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2e056bfcd6c9499ce4401c581de7df5", "text": "\"Definition: Fundamental analysis involves analyzing financial statements and health, management and competitive advantages, and competitors and markets. Books are a great way to learn fundamental analysis but can be time consuming for something that really isn't very difficult. So the internet might be a better way to get started. When using fundamental analysis all you are doing is trying to figure out how much a company is worth. The vocabulary and huge range of acronyms can be intimidating but really its a fairly simple task. You can use (investopedia) for definitions and simple examples when you do not fully understand something. IE: (PEG) You can search for definitions using the search bar on the top right (google also is a good source to look for additional definitions). I recommend starting out by doing an independent analysis on a well known name such as Proctor & Gamble or Mcdonald's. Then you can compare your analysis to a professionals and see how they stack up. Books and Resources: Getting Started in Fundamental Analysis Fundamental Analysis For Dummies Fundamental analysis Wiki What Is Fundamental Analysis? - Video tut from Investopedia Fundamental Analysis: Introduction Step by Step example of fundamental analysis - It's a pretty in depth forum post. Side Notes: Personally when I first began using fundamental analysis I found it difficult to understand why something is considered undervalued or overvalued. I couldn't figure out who was the \"\"authority\"\" on saying this. Well in short the \"\"authority\"\" basically is the market. You can say you believe XYZ is undervalued but you are only proven correct if the market agrees with you over long period of time. Some key facts you should know: Many times a stock can be \"\"broken\"\" for many reasons. The price can go far beyond what would be considered a \"\"normal valuation\"\" (this is considered a bubble, e.g. the tech bubble of 1999-2000). It can also go far below a \"\"normal valuation\"\". In most cases these types of valuations are short lived and in the end a stock should return to \"\"normal valuation\"\" or at least this is the theory behind fundamental analysis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d97e266ba12f00578992bb56628866ea", "text": "The thing about business is, it isn't engineering, medicine, or law. What value does inventing a whole other language add? When it's a shortcut, fine, but too often these phrases sprout up because MBAs want everyone to think they know something arcane and precious, and that's when cliches are a symptom of obfuscation, something engineers, doctors, and lawyers are certainly guilty of, albeit with more justification.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c58daa07acae659b5335af1ae1dfa254", "text": "Keep in mind a good lawyer will have the contract cover the five D's: Its really best to lay these things out ahead of time. I watched, first hand, two friends start a business. When they were broke and struggling the worked very well together. Then the money started rolling in. Despite exceeding their dreams they were constantly at each other's throats fighting and bickering over stupid stuff. In the end, because they had decent legal docs, they both were able to pull money out of the business. Had that not been worked out they would have destroyed the business so that no one would have profited.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac5f6d63f5ddfbe95132e9cb560a5580", "text": "Get involved a lawyer and Accountant. Without it you may not be sure what you are getting. What exactly will 30% mean for me? It will mean exactly what gets written in contract. It can mean you are owner of 30% of the company. If this is structured as partnership, it would also mean you are party to 30% loss. It can mean by current valuation, you get x fixed shares. In future if the directors creates more shares, your % ownership can get diluted. Or anything else. It all depends on what is written in contract and how the contract is structured. Is there anything I should I be aware of before agreeing? Get a draft and talk to a Lawyer and Accountant, they should be able to tell you exactly what it means and you can then decide if you agree to it or not; or need this contract worded differently.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cc91ea4c757c7222136a6d2fab185128", "text": "Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend. The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes. Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend. Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83a2cd1d21f6b2b537b411e87e0e262d", "text": "As part of this acquisition 96% of the shareholders accepted an offer for their shares This means that most of the shareholder agreed for the sale. If this was less than specified percentage, the deal would not have gone through. To make it easier, there were 2 options present to shareholder, full exchange of shares of Infinera or part shares and part cash. I failed to do so as I was unwell at the time So you cannot now choose the option. There will be a default option of getting the equivalent shares in Infinera. What options are available to me now? Contact Infinera investor relations and ask them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9137d9de66cb03137718ed663e40f0a", "text": "Isn't this absolute bullshit? You're basically giving him 8% interest plus 30% stake in the company for nothing other than putting up the initial shareholder capital ... which he's basically treating like a loan because he wants the money back and guaranteed dividend on the stake he's buying with it. Essentially, he's hedging himself against this not being a long continuing concern. So much for trust eh? I have absolutely no idea how the VC world evaluates things so this may be normal practice for them ... but it seems like short changing which will come back to bite you if the business takes off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cb4bef3b410bfdf6c5f591b47e88eb", "text": "A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da781e6cc464fae224f7616998e5d61b", "text": "Imagine that I own 10% of a company, and yesterday my portion was valued at $1 Million, therefore the company is valued at $10 Million. Today the company accepts an offer to sell 1% of the company for $500 Thousand: now my portion is worth $5 Million, and company is worth $50 Million. The latest stock price sets the value of the company. If next week the news is all bad and the new investor sells their shares to somebody else for pennies on the dollar, the value of the company will drop accordingly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1931fcfb31aace0fe69344184134370", "text": "\"Simply paying him back the 50K to reduce \"\"his equity\"\" back to 30% doesn't necessarily mean that he still doesn't have a higher liq pref upon a liquidation event. You don't need the legal language to know...I deal with term sheets all the time, I don't deal in the legal language, we cut the deal with the term sheet and leave the legal language to the lawyers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75d0ef524784e39bf4b944ea1d459050", "text": "number of shares is finite Yes it is I would assume that the repurchase numbers exceed the numbers of created shares Number of shares repurchased by company would never exceed in theory the total number of shares. It can become Zero, however its unlikely as it would run on its own and its not possible. In practise company generally repurchase a small percentage say 5% - 10% of the outstanding shares. The number of shares additional created is irrelevant. Its the total shares that is relevant. Edit: A company starts with say 100 shares, over the period it creates new shares [via various mechanisms, Rights issue, split, Additional shares, etc] say to the extent of 50. So now the company has total shares of 150. This lets say is held by 15 entities. The company can buy back say 15 shares in a year, and keep doing this, next year another 10 etc. However a company if it purchased all 150 of its own shares is unlikely as the Majority shareholders will not like this to happen and loose control. There are 2 different things, buying out of minority shareholders, typically different percentage of the shares are held by non-promoters and available for trade can range from 10% to 70% ... there are also listing norms. Quite a few stock-exchange need atleast 10% shares to be available for trade [held by non-promotors]. In case a company has a small number of shares held by non-promoters, it can buy back the shares and delist the company from the exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0781346fa724fd4cdd54d85a61f25b62", "text": "I almost agree. I am not completely sure about the ownership of stock, but to have the majority ownership of any company you must own more than 50% of a company's outstanding shares. Although a board in majority, could out vote a majority shareholder in most cases depending on the company policy regarding shareholders and the general law of the country, and to how the company is managed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c12ee0e61851a3b1e3a942a83af67044", "text": "\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00d21b3746e0c66b39ff8538ccd42fcd", "text": "\"Owning more than 50% of a company's stock normally gives you the right to elect a majority, or even all of a company's (board of) directors. Once you have your directors in place, you can tell them who to hire and fire among managers. There are some things that may stand in the way of your doing this. First, there may be a company bylaw that says that the directors can be replaced only one \"\"class\"\" at a time, with three or four \"\"classes.\"\" Then it could take you two or three years to get control of the company. Second, there may be different classes of shares with different voting rights, so if e.g. \"\"A\"\" shares controlled by the founding family gives them ten votes, and \"\"B\"\" shares owned by the other shareholders, you may have a majority of total shares and be outvoted by the \"\"A\"\" shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4369868410d906a8c2a6ee3fc23dc638", "text": "It depends on the business entity. If the entity is a sole proprietorship or a general partnership, the individual are considered to be the business. There are no shares, and so yes, the owner would have to take on 75% of the expenses. For example, in the event of a lawsuit, if the claimant were awarded $1,000,000, the 75% partner would be personally liable for $750,000. In the event of a corporation, there are shares, so the responsibility is on the management of the company, not the owners, to come up with money for the expenses of the business. That money can come from the business' capital, which is the money owners have put in. Basically, for a corporate entity, the owner is not responsible for 75% of expenses, for a partnership, yes, they are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a7cb335aa2cfc013f8504d25232875e", "text": "\"It is not clear when you mean \"\"company's directors\"\" are they also majority owners. There are several reasons for Buy; Similarly there are enough reasons for sell; Quite often the exact reasons for Buy or Sell are not known and hence blindly following that strategy is not useful. It can be one of the inputs to make a decision.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67d7dfb2f82a21b6f3921d03126aca1a", "text": "The power of selling skills. Jonathan convinced him that at 100% it was not truly in the investors best interest because he would lose what made the company grow, him... Example at 100% equity (A buyout) the company would lose its CEO the driving force behind the product. Maybe because of this it only makes a million in sales and value. But at 35% plus 4% in sales Jonathan will continue to put his heart, soul and passion into the company and in the long term maybe the company becomes worth 10 million. And at 35% this deal is worth 3.5 million to the investor, all because he was convinced of Jonathan's tenacity. A truly beautiful display of knowing your stuff and sticking to your guns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bf921ce7872ac844b4b36aba18cec4d", "text": "From my memory of CFA Level 2 accounting: * If Company A buys 50% or more of company B, they must consolidate 100% of Company B on their financial statements. The % of the business they don't own is multiplied by net income every year, and the resulting number is added to minority interest on the balance sheet. * If Company A buys more than 20% but less than 50%, use the equity method of accounting. This involves creating an asset for the purchase price paid for the stake in Company B. The asset increases in value by dividends received, that's it. * If Company A buys 20% or less, the investment is held in Marketable securities or something similar on the balance, and is marked-to-market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0654e7730a0c6596f36a97d8f2e0cc7", "text": "You actually have a few options. First, you can do a share split and then sell an equal number of shares from both you and your wife to maintain parity. Second, you can have the company issue additional shares/convert shares and then have the company sell the appropriate percentage to the third party while the rest is distributed to you and your wife. Third, you can have the company issue a separate class of stock. For example there are companies that have voting stock and non-voting stock. Depending on your goal, you could just issue non-voting stock and sell that. Best bet is to contact a lawyer who specializes in this type of work and have them recommend a course of action. One caveat that has not been mentioned is that what/how you do this will also depend on the type of corporation that you have created.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "576f7d951a779bdf0f9e1097102fbb92", "text": "There is nothing fair / unfair in such deals. It is an art than a science. what kind of things should be considered, to work out what would be a fair percentage stake A true fair value is; take the current valuation of the company [This can be difficult if it is small and does not maintain proper records]. Divide by number of shares, that is the value of share and you should 20K worth of such shares. But then there is risk premium. You are taking a risk that an small start-up may do exceedingly well ... or it may close off. This risk premium is what is negotiated. It depends on how desperate the owner of the small company is; who all are interested in this specific deal ... if you want 30% share; someone else is ready to offer 20K for 15% of share. Or there is no one willing to lend 20K as they don't believe it will make money ... and the owner is desperate, you may even get 50%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecb00e05bf09c78b463c0b7c134741d3", "text": "\"It should be pretty obvious that without knowing what sort of assets the company owns, and what sort of net earnings are being generated it's impossible to say what a $20k equity investment should get you in terms of ownership percentage. With that said, you want to look at a few to several years of books, look for trends. Some things to understand that might be subtle red flags: It's extremely common for early stage investors to essentially make loans rather than strictly buying shares. In the worst case scenario creditors get to participate in liquidation proceedings before shareholders do. You may be better off investing in this business via a loan that's convertible to equity at your discretion. Single owner service companies are difficult because all of the net earnings go to the proprietor and that person maintains all of the relationships. So taking something like 5 years of net earnings as the value of the company doesn't make much sense because you (or someone else) couldn't just step in and replace the owner. Granted, you aren't contemplating taking over the business, but it negates using an X years of net earnings valuation method. When you read about valuation there is a sort of overriding assumption that no single person could topple the operation which couldn't be farther from the truth in single employee service companies. Additionally, understand that your investment in a single owner company hinges completely on one person's ability and willingness to work. It's really vital to understand the purpose of the funds. Someone will be hired? $20,000 couldn't be even six months of wages... Put things in to perspective with a pad, pen and calculator. Don't invest in the pipe dream of a friend of yours, and DEFINITELY don't hand this person the downpayment for their new house. The first rule of investing is \"\"don't lose money,\"\" this isn't emotional, this is a dollars and cents pragmatic process. Why does the business need this money? How will you be paid back? Personally, I think it would be more gratifying to put $20k in a blender and watch it blend, this is probably a horrible investment. The risk should just be left to credit card companies.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f0656add052a98a8db4a16389833068c", "text": "Source, see if you have access to it Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses without establishing an explicit valuation of the company in which they are investing. When an investor purchases equity in a startup, the purchase price of the equity implies a company valuation. For example, if an investor purchases a 10 per cent ownership stake in a company, and pay $1m for that stake, this implies that the company is worth $10m. Some early stage investors may wish to avoid placing a value on the company in this way, because this in turn will affect the terms under which later-stage investors will invest in the company. Convertible notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made. The outstanding balance of the loan is automatically converted to equity when a later equity investor appears, under terms that are governed by the terms set by the later-stage equity investor. An equity investor is someone who purchases equity in a company. Example:- Suppose an angel investor invests $100,000 using a convertible note. Later, an equity investor invests $1m and receives 10% of the company's shares. In the simplest possible case, the initial angel investor's convertible note would convert to 1/10th of the equity investor's claim. Depending on the exact structure of the convertible note, however, the angel investor may also receive extra shares to compensate them for the additional risk associated with being an earlier investor The worst-case scenario would be if the issuing company initially performed well, meaning that the debt would be converted into shares, and subsequently went bankrupt. The converted shares would become worthless, but the holder of the note would no longer have any recourse. Will twitter have to sell their offices and liquidate staff to close this debt? This depends on the seniority(priority) of the debt. Debt is serviced according to seniority. The higher seniority debts will be paid off first and then only the lower seniority debts be serviced. This will all be in the agreements when you enter into a transaction. When you say liquidate staff you mean sell off their assets and not sell their staff into slavery.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ca4fe8511e65b7cb8ff2d94ddb5fe0e", "text": "What you have to remember is you are buying a piece of the company. Think of it in terms of buying a business. Just like a business, you need to decide how long you are willing to wait to get paid back for your investment. Imagine you were trying to sell your lemonade stand. This year your earnings will be $100, next year will be $110, the year after that $120 and so on. Would you be willing to sell it for $100?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6a5a540c60faee2f81e922e2fa4a79", "text": "There are many ways to value a business. Here is a simple method to get a ball park number on most businesses. This business is made of two parts. For the real estate: For the business: I would consider this type of small business riskier than the stock market and so you should expect a higher return. Maybe 15 or 20%? If the rental business makes $50k profit (not revenue) and that is 20% return of your investment, the business is worth $250k. If the business makes no money or if they only make money because they don't take a salary then this is a hobby and not a business. There's no business to buy here and you are just bidding on the real estate to do with what you please. The assets worth $600k and the business worth $250k would be added together for a fair sale price of $850k. Adjust for your actual numbers and you should be able to get a ball park of what you think the business is worth. If you do the math and it works out that you'll make 1-3% on your business, compare that to investing in other places. If it works out that you'll make 40% on your money that's pretty awesome too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dba28ff9b2908da6f4be7d5ec49557e", "text": "Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea277e4ed379486c09e3bbc1d31fd249", "text": "Your analysis is correct. The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio. As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies. There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years. How should these companies be valued? As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company. Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth. Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003. Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times. If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "235d9911f024b3047fa915c0789caa18", "text": "There are different ways to determine the value of a company: When an entrepreneur starts a new company himself and owns 100% of the company, the Fair Market value is unknown. He has put his own money into the company, so it has a high Investment value to him, meaning he has a lot at stake in the company. The Asset value is probably less than the Investment value, meaning if he closed the company, he would lose some of the money he invested. Now, using your example, a Venture Capitalist comes along and takes a look at the company. She believes that the company has a great future potential to make money, which means that she believes that the Intrinsic value is very high. She decides to invest $1 Million in the company for a 10% stake, and the founder agrees. The Fair Market value of the company at that moment is $10 Million. The VC believes that the Intrinsic value of the company is more than $10 Million and that she is making a good investment. The Asset value of the company just went up by $1 Million. To answer your question, the $1 Million is not the founder's to spend on a new house. It is the company's money. However, the founder owns 90% of the company. The new capital will allow the company to buy whatever assets the company needs to meet the potential that the founder and the VC see in it, and make the company grow and earn money for the two investors. A crooked founder could, theoretically, close down the company immediately and pocket 90% of the new cash, but there are certainly legal protections in the contract they signed when the investment was made that prevent him from doing that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98ec745c6a8e74d555e9e026298ed9a2", "text": "It is difficult to value a private company. Most of the valuations is based on how one feels the idea would translate into revenue in some future time. The VC firms take into account various factors to determine the price, but more often then not, its their hunch. Even VC don't make money on all picks, very few picks turn out to be stars, most picks lose money they have invested. Few picks just return their money. So if you feel that the idea/product/brand/people are great and would someday make good money, invest into it. Else stay away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b731769f380d1dbc187594d1070e9701", "text": "I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15f7e3886208561d239ceac550001b11", "text": "\"Okay, I'm going to give you my opinion based on experience; not any technical understanding. The options - by themselves - are pretty meaningless in terms of determining their value. The business plan going forward, their growth expectations, the additional options to be authorized, the additional preferred stock offers they anticipate, even current estimated value of the company are some of the pieces of data you will be needing. I also want to say something cynical, like \"\"to hell with the stock options give me cold hard\"\" but that's just me. (My experience two-times so far has shown stock options to be worth very very little.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "135ab65269bd06b6073c0509e2cb3856", "text": "Since you are talking about a small firm, for the long term, it would be advisable to invest your money into the expansion - growth, diversification, integration - of your business. However, if your intention is to make proper use of your earnings in the short term, a decent bank deposit would help you to increase the credit line for your business with the benefit of having a high enough liquidity. You can also look at bonds and other such low risk instruments to protect your assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "053fc9bcde5b00d378e822f216f521bb", "text": "Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k. In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10. The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year. If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11. Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices. You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k. Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future. The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10. If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k). You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower. Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55007fd29e85f7c0371128de9781b4b8", "text": "\"Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it \"\"should\"\": A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months. This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share). Only then would the stock be worth buying? Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market. Why? Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars). Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted. The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27329adb821354bfbb68c192b1454180", "text": "You could also look at your growth in online subscribers as a metric for valuing your company. A progressive increase in subscribers is one of the signs of a healthy online business, and vice versa. Your subscriber growth, site visitations, returning customer percentages and other subscriber based metrics should not be ignored when valuing your company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6df12d93516abeff8fd5bd05200b87b4", "text": "\"Since you have no sales, I'd likely question how well could you determine the value of the company's assets in a reasonable fashion. You may be better to estimate sales and discount that back to a current valuation. For example, insurance companies could determine that if you wanted to be paid $x/month for the rest of your life, the present day value of that is $y. There are similar mechanisms for businesses but this does get tricky as the estimates have to be somewhat conservative and you have to be prepared for some other scenarios. For example, if you got the $200,000 then would you really never have to ask for more external equity financing in the future or is it quite likely that you'd want another infusion down the road? While you can mark it at $1,000,000 there will be questions about why that value that you'd have to answer and saying, \"\"Cause I like big round numbers,\"\" may not go over well. My suggestion is to consider what kind of sales will the company have over the next 5 years that you could work back to determine a current price. If you believe the company can have $5,000,000 in sales over the 5 years then it may make sense to place the current valuation of $1,000,000 on it. I wouldn't look too much into the money and time you've invested as that isn't likely to go over well with investors that just because you've put in what is worth $x, the business may or may not be worth that. The challenge is that without sales, it is quite difficult to get an idea of what is the company worth. If it makes billions, then it is worth a lot more than a company that never turns a profit. Another way to consider this is the question of what kind of economic output do you think you could do working here for the next 5 years? Could you do thousands of dollars of work, millions of dollars or just a few bucks? Consider how you want this to be seen where if you want some help look up episodes of TV shows like \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" as these give valuations often as part of the pitch which is what you are doing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62077bd6249e2f08079161e4588f0f94", "text": "\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "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": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6524bc2becd518e677ad0cd882293a3d", "text": "The guarantee's value to you is whatever you have to pay to get the guarantee, assuming that you don't decide it's too expensive and look for another guarantor or another solution entirely. How much are you willing to pay for this loan, not counting interest and closing costs? That's what it's worth. See past answers about the risks of co-signing for a realistic view of how much risk your guarantor would be accepting and why they should hold out for a very substantial reimbursement for this service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7693c356c975e39379e08b247abf81f", "text": "The standard goal of valuing anything is to seek the fair price for that thing in the open market. Depending on what is being valued, that may or may not be an easy task. eg: to value your home, get a real estate appraiser, who will look at recent market sales in your area, and adjust for nuances of your property. To value your loan guarantee, you would need to figure out what it is actually worth to the business, which may be difficult. In a perfect world, you would be able to ask the bank to tell you the interest rate you would have to pay, if the loan was not guaranteed. This would show you the value you are providing to the business by guaranteeing it. ie: if the interest would be $100k a year unguaranteed, but is only $40k a year guaranteed, you are saving the business $60k a year. If the loan is to last 5 years, that's a total of $300k. Of course, it is likely the bank simply won't offer you an unguaranteed loan at all. This makes the value quite difficult to determine, and highlights the underlying transaction you are considering: You are taking on personal risk of loan default, to profit the business. If you truly can't find an equitable way to value the guarantee, consider whether you understand the true risk of what you are doing. If you are able to determine an appropriate value for the loan, consider whether increasing your equity is fair compensation. There are other methods of compensation available, such as having the company pay you directly, or decrease the amount of capital you need to invest for this new set of equity. In the end, what is fair is what the other shareholders agree to. If you go to the shareholders with anything less than professional 3rd party advice (and stackexchange does not count as professional), then they may be wary of accepting your 'fee', no matter how reasonable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19e274619afa82cd02d9aab9f56d1ebc", "text": "\"You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor. If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit \"\"taking into consideration the probability of default \"\". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c271dc160cc14046b923589c6d17ed7", "text": "You should ask the bank supplying the SBA loan about the % of ownership that is required to personally guarantee the loan. Different banks give different figures, but I believe the last time I heard about this it was 20% or more owners must personally guarantee the loan. Before you spend a lot of money on legal fees drawing up a complicated scheme of shares, ask the bank what they require. Make sure you speak with an underwriter since many service people don't know the rules.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b5ce0e715bbecbe660d6f410a6281b97", "text": "There is a way to get a reasonable estimate of what you still owe, and then the way to get the exact value. When the loan started they should have given you amortization table that laid out each payment including the principal, interest and balance for each payment. If there are any other fees included in the payment those also should have been detailed. Determine how may payments you have maid: did you make the first payment on day one, or the start of the next month? Was the last payment the 24th, or the next one? The table will then tell you what you owe after your most recent payment. To get the exact value call the lender. The amount grows between payment due to the interest that is accumulating. They will need to know when the payment will arrive so they can give you the correct value. To calculate how much you will save do the following calculation: payment = monthly payment for principal and interest paymentsmade =Number of payments made = 24 paymentsremaining = Number of payments remaining = 60 - paymentsmade = 60-24 = 36 instantpayoff = number from loan company savings = (payment * paymentsremaining ) - instantpayoff", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2f4400348bb1a1d6a1cb9b5ac1b47e0", "text": "\"The \"\"guaranteed minimum future value\"\" isn't really a guarantee so much as the amount they will charge you at the end of the agreement if you want to keep the car. In this sense it might better be considered a \"\"guaranteed maximum future cost\"\". If the car has fallen below that value at that point, then you can just hand back the car and you won't owe anything extra. If it turns out to be worth more, you end up in profit - though only if you either actually pay for the car, or if you roll over into a new PCP deal. So the finance company has an incentive to set it at a sensible value, otherwise they'll end up losing money. Most new cars lose a lot of value quickly initially, and then the rate of loss slows down. But given that it's lost £14k in 2 years, it seems pretty likely it'll lose much more than another £1k in the next 2 years. So it does sound like that in this case, they estimated the value badly at the start of the deal and will end up taking a loss on the deal when you hand it back at the end. It appears you also have the legal right to \"\"voluntary termination\"\" once you have paid off half the \"\"Total Amount Payable\"\". This should be documented in the PCP agreement and if you're half way into the deal then I'd expect you'll be about there. If that doesn't apply, you can try to negotiate to get out of the deal early anyway. If they look at it rationally, they should think about the value of your payments over the next two years minus the loss they will end up with at the end of those two years. But there's no guarantee they will. Disclaimer: Despite living in the UK, I hadn't heard of these contracts until I read this question, so my answer is based entirely on web searches and some inferences. The two most useful sources I found on the general subject were this one and this one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b347516b80a7e2ce42a82256cc525709", "text": "A Loan is an loan that gives some kind of benefit as an assurance to a loaning organization. So when you put in an application for a credit, you likewise advocate that in case that you can not pay, you've some form of benefit that will cover the default sum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "954366c292367a5d222b983be4aa261a", "text": "1. this is not the correct sub, try /r/Entrepreneurs or similar 2. Banks only care about 1 thing: collaterals with personal guarantee from the owners/shareholders of the business. Nothing else matters, don't waste your time with a business plan. (Yes ELI: bank only give money to people who have money).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7ef1a2fdbb1359261574b34d2c11589", "text": "A financial institution is not obligated to offer you a loan. They will only offer you a loan if they believe that they will make money off you. They use all the info available in order to determine if offering you a loan is profitable. In short, whether they offer you a loan, and the interest rate they charge for that loan, is based on a few things: How much does it cost the bank to borrow money? [aka: how much does the bank need to pay people who have savings accounts with them?]; How much does the bank need to spend in order to administer the loan? [ie: the loan officer's time, a little time for the IT guy who helps around the office, office space they are renting in order to allow the transaction to take place]; and How many people will 'default' and never be able to repay their loan? [ex: if 1 out of 100 people default on their loans, then every one of those 100 loans needs to be charged an extra 1% in order to recover the money the bank will lose on the person who defaults]. What we are mostly interested in here is #3: how likely are you to default? The bank determines that by determining your income, your assets, your current debts outstanding, your past history with payments (also called a credit score), and specifically to mortgages, how much the house is worth. If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay. Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64e9e40b6898d48c338c7559204146d0", "text": "\"I'm afraid the great myth of limited liability companies is that all such vehicles have instant access to credit. Limited liability on a company with few physical assets to underwrite the loan, or with insufficient revenue, will usually mean that the owners (or others) will be asked to stand surety on any credit. However, there is a particular form of \"\"credit\"\" available to businesses on terms with their clients. It is called factoring. Factoring is a financial transaction whereby a business sells its accounts receivable (i.e., invoices) to a third party (called a factor) at a discount in exchange for immediate money with which to finance continued business. Factoring differs from a bank loan in three main ways. First, the emphasis is on the value of the receivables (essentially a financial asset), not the firm’s credit worthiness. Secondly, factoring is not a loan – it is the purchase of a financial asset (the receivable). Finally, a bank loan involves two parties whereas factoring involves three. Recognise that this can be quite expensive. Most banks catering to small businesses will offer some form of factoring service, or will know of services that offer it. It isn't that different from cheque encashment services (pay-day services) where you offer a discount on future income for money now. An alternative is simply to ask his clients if they'll pay him faster if he offers a discount (since either of interest payments or factoring would reduce profitability anyway).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b4e0eb0641fc8e6dd1a94c8b3a36a1b", "text": "\"You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Cash flow is the life blood of any business. When banks loan money, they are expecting a steady cash flow back. If you just pay back \"\"whenever\"\" - the bank has no idea what they'll be getting back month-to-month. When they can set the terms of the loan (length, rate, payment amount), they know how much cash flow they expect to get. What does [the term of the loan] even mean and what difference in the world does it make? In addition to the predictable cash flow needs above, setting a term for the loan determines how long their money will be tied up in the loan. The longer a bank has money tied up in a loan, the more risk there is that the borrower will default, so the bank will require a greater return (interest rate) for that extra risk. What you have described is effectively a revolving line of credit. The bank let you borrow money arbitrarily, charges you a certain rate of interest, and you can pay them back at your schedule. If you pay all of the interest for that month, everything else goes to principal. If you don't pay all of the interest, that interest is added to the balance and gets interest compounded on top of it. Both are perfectly viable business models, and bank employ them both, but they meed different needs for the bank. Fixed-term loans help stabilize cash flow, and lines of credit provide convenience for customers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "646a544547af13b516d0c897e77d1e74", "text": "On a personal Loan Yes. On a business loan, it would depend on the Bank and they would like to understand the purpose of the loan and need it to be secured. They may not even grant such kind of business loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18ebd16192f0d891dec26f9c5cef108", "text": "I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c41ae0b3760a3df1db01624405faaab", "text": "There's a bit of truth to that, except in reality when you ask for business loan the bank most definitely looks at the background of the owners (assuming it's a small business). You might have some luck fooling investors as a way to get some capital, but that's doubtful as well if you have a history of starting companies that later fail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ccea21c553d6fdbf534fdb0d965a54", "text": "The home owner will knock 20% off the price of the house. If the house is worth $297K, then 20% is just a discount your landlord is offering. So your actual purchase price is $237K, and therefore a bank would have to lend you $237K. Since the house is worth more than the loan, you have equity. 20% to be more accurate. Another way to say is, the bank only wants to loan you 80% of the value of the item securing the loan. If you default on day one, they can sell the house to somebody else for $296K and get a 20% return on their loan. So this 20% you are worried about isn't actually money that anybody gives anybody else, it is just a concept.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22e6a67b3772124c6afed7830c1bfb4f", "text": "\"A \"\"true\"\" 0% loan is a losing proposition for the bank, that's true. However when you look at actual \"\"0%\"\" loans they usually have some catches: There might also be late payment fees, prepayment penalties, and other clauses that make it a good deal on average to the bank. Individual borrowers might be able to get away with \"\"free money\"\", but the bank does not look to make money on each loan, they look to make money on thousands of loans overall. For a retailer (including new car sellers). the actual financing costs will be baked into the sales price. They will add, say, 10% to the sales price in exchange for an interest-free loan. They can also sell these loans to an investment bank or other entity, but they would be sold at a deep discount, so the difference will be made up in the sales price or other \"\"fees\"\". It's possible that they would just chalk it up to promotional discounts or customer acquisition costs, but it would not be a good practice on a large scale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "532cd8a3e15d0d6829b3962d772eb0cc", "text": "Get in touch with a reliable company if you are looking for a range of small business financing solutions. Such companies offer consolidation loans to help smaller businesses take care of their previous obligations and this way manage their finances better", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c89af4372c5a95e112336d2e3e9f3f8a", "text": "\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b11f4fa7e336955f0eea0451f70dcdc", "text": "This is dumb. The sub company will lose money but the parent company will pay taxes on the income they made off of expenses to the subcompany. This doesn't systematically reduce their risk either. Banks will loan more money if the parent company is liable to pay the bills if the sub company can't. So yes, a bank may make a loan to the sub company without any liability on the parent company, but its going to be a very small loan compared to what they would've given the parent company.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "dc38b60a0e383d11c098c69517619c7f", "text": "In the equity markets, the P/E is usually somewhere around 15. The P/E can be viewed as the inverse of the rate of a perpetuity. Since the average is 15, and the E/P of that would be 6.7%, r should be 6.7% on average. If your business is growing, the growth rate can be incorporated like so: As you can see, a high g would make the price negative, in essence the seller should actually pay someone to take the business, but in reality, r is determined from the p and an estimated g. For a business of any growth rate, it's best to compare the multiple to the market, so for the average business in the market with your business's growth rate and industry, that P/E would be best applied to your company's income.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f5a95d65477663dfcf01e2ed5e2fbee3", "text": "There is no formula for calculating a stock price based on the financials of a company. A stock price is set by the market and always has a component built into it that is based on something outside of the current valuation of a company using its financials. Essentially, the stock price of a company per share is whatever the best price it can get on the open market. If you are looking at how to evaluate if a stock is a good value at the current price, then look at some of the answers, but I wanted to answer this based on the way you phrased the question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce932128386e9ac1e3bdbe0c347a0ad7", "text": "If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b143acbcb0db499f15b967cf333ea82", "text": "The book value is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities and so if you increase the Total Assets without changing the Total Liabilities the difference gets bigger and thus higher. Consider if a company had total assets of $4 and total liabilities of $3 so the book value is $1. Now, if the company adds $2 to the assets, then the difference would be 4+2-3=6-3=3 and last time I checked 3 is greater than 1. On definitions, here are a couple of links to clarify that side of things. From Investopedia: Equity = Assets - Liabilities From Ready Ratios: Shareholders Equity = Total Assets – Total Liabilities OR Shareholders Equity = Share Capital + Retained Earnings – Treasury Shares Depending on what the reinvestment bought, there could be several possible outcomes. If the company bought assets that appreciated in value then that would increase the equity. If the company used that money to increase sales by expanding the marketing department then the future calculations could be a bit trickier and depend on what assumptions one wants to make really. If you need an example of the latter, imagine playing a game where I get to make up the rules and change them at will. Do you think you'd win at some point? It would depend on how I want the game to go and thus isn't something that you could definitively say one way or the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36546d11d900062f0daed28ba6f6186a", "text": "I was merely trying to be helpful - Conceptually, you have dump this idea that something is skewed. It isn't. Firm A sold for $500 (equity value aka purchase price to shareholders) + debt (zero) - cash (50) for 450. Enterprise value is the cash free, debt free sale price. The implied ev multiple is 4.5x on A - that is the answer. The other business sold for a higher multiple of 5x. If you would pile on more cash onto A, the purchase price would increase, but the EV wouldn't. The idea is to think hard about the difference between equity value and enterprise value when examining a transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79b730bea961def6987f5d292bed6251", "text": "Let P denote the amount of the investment, R the rate of return and I the rate of inflation. For simplicity, assume that the payment p is made annually right after the return has been earned. Thus, at the end if the year, the investment P has increased to P*(1+R) and p is returned as the annuity payment. If I = 0, the entire return can be paid out as the payment, and thus p = P*R. That is, at the end of the year, when the dust settles after the return P*R has been collected and paid out as the annuity payment, P is again available at the beginning of the next year to earn return at rate R. We have P*(1+R) - p = P If I > 0, then at the end of the year, after the dust settles, we cannot afford to have only P available as the investment for next year. Next year's payment must be p*(1+I) and so we need a larger investment since the rate of return is fixed. How much larger? Well, if the investment at the beginning of next year is P*(1+I), it will earn exactly enough additional money to pay out the increased payment for next year, and have enough left over to help towards future increases in payments. (Note that we are assuming that R > I. If R < I, a perpetuity cannot be created.) Thus, suppose that we choose p such that P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) Multiplying this equation by (1+I), we have [P(1+I)]*(1+R) - [p*(1+I)] = P*(1+I)^2 In words, at the start of next year, the investment is P*(1+I) and the return less the increased payout of p*(1+I) leaves an investment of P*(1+I)^2 for the following year. Each year, the payment and the amount to be invested for the following year increase by a factor of (1+I). Solving P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) for p, we get p = P*(R-I) as the initial perpetuity payment and the payment increases by a factor (1+I) each year. The initial investment is P and it also increases by a factor of (1+I) each year. In later years, the investment is P*(1+I)^n at the start of the year, the payment is p*(1+I)^n and the amount invested for the next year is P*(1+I)^{n+1}. This is the same result as obtained by the OP but written in terms that I can understand, that is, without the financial jargon about discount rates, gradients, PV, FV and the like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79761ea709f02e044c94985e3211cab4", "text": "\"The fallacy in your question is in this statement: \"\"The formulas must exist, because prices can be followed real time.\"\" What you see are snapshots of the current status of the stock, what was the last price a stock was traded at, what is the volume, is the price going up or down. People who buy and hold their stock look at the status every few days or even every few months. Day traders look at the status every second of the trading day. The math/formula comes in when people try to predict where the stock is going based on the squiggles in the line. These squiggles move based on how other people react to the squiggles. The big movements occur when big pieces of news make large movements in the price. Company X announces the release of the key product will be delayed by a year; the founder is stepping down; the government just doubled the order for a new weapon system; the insiders are selling all the shares they can. There are no formulas to determine the correct price, only formulas that try to predict where the price may go.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4de28ba19820b615cbea36347ae3584a", "text": "For the constant growth problem, I don't see why the answer would be anything other than the stock price grown for 3 years at the cost of equity determined from CAPM. Someone can correct me if the dividend is relevant. So: rs = rf + beta x (market premium) rs = 0.046 + 0.9 x (0.06) = 0.10 price now = $40.00 price after 3 years' growth = $40.00 x (1+0.10)^3 = $53.24 EDIT: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-dividend-yields-factored-into-beta two conflicting answers so you'll just have to figure it out", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37528e2711eafb0e0573772a2bf49083", "text": "The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224", "text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47ae54c33da604d2225616426525aae9", "text": "EDIT: After reading one of the comments on the original question, I realized that there is a much more intuitive way to think about this. If you look at it as a standard PV calculation and hold each of the cashflows constant. Really what's happening is that because of inflation the discount rate isn't the full value of the interest rate. Really the discount rate is only the portion of the interest rate above the inflation rate. Hence in the standard perpetuity PV equation PV = A / r r becomes the interest rate less the inflation rate which gives you PV = A / (i - g). That seems like a much better way to get to the answer than all the machinations I was originally trying. Original Answer: I think I finally figured this out. The general term for this type of system in which the payments increase over time is a gradient series annuity. In this specific example since the payment is increasing by a percentage each period (not a constant rate) this would be considered a geometric gradient series. According to this link the formula for the present value of a geometric gradient series of payments is: Where P is the present value of this series of cashflows. A_1 is the initial payment for period 1 (i.e. the amount you want to withdraw adjusted for inflation). g is the gradient or growth rate of the periodic payment (in this case this is the inflation rate) i is the interest rate n is the number of payments This is almost exactly what I was looking for in my original question. The only problem is this is for a fixed amount of time (i.e. n periods). In order to figure out the formula for a perpetuity we need to find the limit of the right side of this equation as the number of periods (n) approaches infinity. Luckily in this equation n is already well isolated to a single term: (1 + g)^n/(1 + i)^-n}. And since we know that the interest rate, i, has to be greater than the inflation rate, g, the limit of that factor is 0. So after replacing that term with 0 our equation simplifies to the following: Note: I don't do this stuff for a living and honestly don't have a fantastic finance IQ. It's been a while since I've done any calculus or even this much algebra so I may have made an error in the math.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be8cc9df94ea427b68eba92216842cbc", "text": "I find the higher estimates a bit unbelievable. A big part of my job is liability valuation and small assumption changes can have a huge impact on results. They may be right (future) dollar value wise but the proper way to think about this stuff is in present value terms. This could actually be a really interesting study - you all just gave me a great idea for a potential masters thesis :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e91d8c0dcb863fc4b14459f62a081534", "text": "\"Complex matter that doesn't boil down to a formula. The quant aspect could be assessed by calculating WACCs under various funding scenarii and trying to minimize, but it is just one dimension of it. The quali aspects can vary widely depending on the company, ownership structure, tax environment and business needs and it really can't be covered even superficially in a reddit comment... Few examples from the top of my mind to give you a sense of it: - shareholders might be able to issue equity but want to avoid dilution, so debt is preferred in the end despite cost. Or convertible debt under the right scenario. - company has recurring funding needs and thinks that establishing a status on debt market is worth paying a premium to ensure they can \"\"tap\"\" it whenever hey need to. - adding debt is a way to leverage and enhance ROI/IRR for certain types of stakeholders (think LBOs) - etc etc etc Takes time and a lot of experience/work to be able to figure out what's best and there isn't always a clear answer. Source: pro buy side credit investor with experience and sizeable AuMs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf40930621416f1a038cdfc953e9eb6", "text": "Average rates of return usually assume compounding, so your formula would be for annual compounding ,or for continuous compounding.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30022115b2b70935cca632e08858c3db", "text": "dafuq did I just read. I think this would be better explained with an excel chart because I have no idea what you just wrote. Can you please use real numbers in a possible hypothetical case study. I'm absolutely terrible at thinking theoretically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d938cfa19603cd76c60ccc1bc2fa74d2", "text": "I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation. Not sure what you are referring to.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3091eda9cb4abbce57a1fd1559c2da15", "text": "This is all answered in the prospectus. The money not yet invested (available/committed to a note but not yet funded) is held in pooled trust account insured by FDIC. Money funded is delivered to the borrower. Lending Club service their notes themselves. Read also my reviews on Lending Club.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c19ae66b44737cc53fa80786107eabb5", "text": "The best description of P2P lending process I saw comes from the SEC proceedings. They are very careful about naming things that are happening in the process. Prosper got back to business after this order, but the paper describes succinctly how Prosper worked when its notes haven't yet been registered by the SEC. These materials contain a lot of responsible comments on how crowdfunding, including P2P lending, works.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1725f7ef8a360ad6fb97628888e9c1b1", "text": "\"Here's a blog by a guy who is trying to do this: Personal Loan Portfolio And here's another one: bobharris.com Do a quick search for \"\"prosper loan\"\" or \"\"kiva\"\" on blog search.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3278e0a9c73e54e1e75295e5d1e9156a", "text": "\"There is no one solution to every project finance problem. Two models might make sense in this situation, however. In this case, you would count all the money that you give to your friend as a loan which he will pay back with interest. The interest rate and loan amounts will have to be agreed on by both of you. One one hand, the interest should be high enough to reward you in a successful outcome for the amount of risk that you take on if things don't work out. On the other, the interest rate needs to be low enough where his earnings after loan repayment justify your friend's effort, in addition to being competitive to ant rate your friend could secure from a bank. The downside to this plan is you don't directly benefit from the franchise's profits. In this model, you will record the cash that each of you invests. Since your friend is also adding \"\"sweat equity\"\" by setting up and operating the franchise, you will need to quantify the work that your friend and you invest into the franchise. Then you can determine how much each of you has invested in terms of dollars and split any franchise profits based on those proportions. The downside of this plan is that it is difficult to estimate how much time each of you invests and how much that time is worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ebdef47b59f8a0bdd4e4fba0440b5b3", "text": "This is fraud and could lead to jail time. The vast majority of people cannot obtain such loans without collateral and one would have to have a healthy income and good credit to obtain that kind of loan to purchase something secured by a valuable asset, such as a home. Has this been done before? Yes, despite it being the US, you may find this article interesting. Hopefully, you see how the intent of this hypothetical situation is stealing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee8fccbcca3d7618962273ff5df1d43a", "text": "The model itself is fairly common for serving particular niche markets. A few other organizations which operate in similar setups: prepaid card providers such as NetSpend, GreenDot, AccountNow, etc; startups such as SmartyPig, PerkStreet, WePay, and HigherOne. Still, nobody else seems to be providing full-service online banking to mainstream customers the way we plan to. We plan to have much better security than most banks, which isn't hard given the current sorry state of online banking in the US. And having an intermediary who's looking out for your interests can be a good thing. David, my co-founder Josh lays out our launch plans and why we are invite-only in his latest post. In short, we made a decision to build our own call center rather than outsource it, and that limits how quickly we can bring people on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97ae846da79dfb8cf406399d59a40041", "text": "For questions 1 and 2. 1) If you are packing the loans into a CDO, they are being sold on the open market. Once it achieves a AAA rating, as most did even though they were mostly subprime, alt a, or arm, it is sold and shipped off the originator's books (While the originator of the CDO collects X% in fees) Basically how the originator makes their money is by X amount of CDOs they sell. There was no incentive to pick and choose the best borrowers to sell a loan to because how the CDOs were sold they achieved the best rating regardless of the borrowers credit risk. Due to this model, people are going to try and get as many people into the homes and sell the CDO asap. This caused questionable lending practices to result, NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans, manipulating borrowers income, assets, etc. Things that could be changed to help not have this occur again: a) Feds monetary policy was pretty meh during this period, due to low interest rates the banks had pretty much an endless supply of money and when all the reasonable ventures dried up they had to explore other opportunities to lend. b) Ratings agencies need an overhaul in how they receive their commission, preferably they should be being paid by the investor not the person issuing the security. This will help to eliminate the bias that results. c) Having X% (2-5) remain on the institutions books who created the CDO will help to make them responsibly lend. This is because if they are required to have it remain on their books, they will make better longer term decisions in who to lend to. I'm pretty sure all of these issues are discussed in Nouriel Roubini's book [Crisis Economics](http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Economics-Course-Future-Finance/dp/1594202508) Another Great book already mentioned in this thread is by Michael Lewis [The Big Short](http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1324140607&amp;sr=1-1) If your interested in the European Crisis Michael Lewis also just came out with [Boomerang](http://www.amazon.com/Boomerang-Travels-New-Third-World/dp/0393081818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1324140665&amp;sr=1-1)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "782554e6e5ed2d43c52b0aff4635861d", "text": "Swimming clubs exist. Treat it as a start up business and it's easier to figure out. Once you know about what people are willing to pay to join you know about how much you can spend. Our family business invites tenants to use a private pool located at one of our properties. We maintain the facility and have appropriate signs posted and a balloon insurance policy specifically for the pool. In 1975 the pool cost 25,000 to install and we spend about $5000-$6000 to operate and heat it each season. The downside is that there is likely a lot less support for the idea than you think. You're going to have to limit access to it with a membership and that's going to be a pain to figure out because it will almost certainly require an employee or a very expensive electronic access control. You can't really open it up to the entire community without some sort of contract or no one has an incentive to pay. Every time a home sells in the community you either lose a customer or gain a headache if you don't have some sort of deed restriction or membership fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62434a140f0cfd64e57c57b6ba1b6a0a", "text": "\"I have a friend who had went on a seminar with FortuneBuilders (the company that has Than Merrill as CEO). He told me that one of the things taught in that seminar was how to find funding for the property that you want to flip. One of the things he mentioned was that there are so-called \"\"hard money\"\" lenders who are willing to lend you the money for the property in exchange for getting their name on the property title. Last time I checked it looked like here in Florida we had at least Bridgewell Capital and Fairview Commercial Lending that were in that business. These hard money lenders get their investment back when the house is sold. So there is some underlying expectation that the house can be sold with some profit (to reimburse both the lender and you for your work). That friend of mine did tell me that he had flipped a house once but that he did not receive the funding to that from a lender but from an in-law, however it was through a similar arrangement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcc93d1da65ba82b809627a7cfab7adf", "text": "P2P lending is basically a debt product with (much) higher risk, I doubt that there's any regulation or government backing in it. The money lent to borrowers are not collateralized or securitized.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b7b1db2ce222246f4d68ce6cf33d47a", "text": "To what end would you want to break the law? Why would you think it is beneficial to you in any way? The reason for these limitations is to protect people who have no financial reserves and are not sophisticated investors from making dangerous and risky investments with the little money they have to invest. You need to remember that there's no guarantee of principal with these loans and the rate of default is pretty high. From my own personal experience with Lending Club (and I've only invested in A and some B-rated loans) - rate of default is about 10%. This may be a nice exercise in microlending - but if you want to put all your savings into this, you're taking a huge risk. Risk which is completely unjustified since not only the returns are pretty low (again - from my aforementioned experience: <6% APR, you take higher rate loans - you get higher rate of defaults), but they're also taxed as ordinary gains. Why would you not, instead, invest in a more conservative bond or bond/stock mix fund which will pay you dividends that will get preferential tax treatment and appreciation would be subject to capital gains tax? No reason. And the limitation on who can invest in Lending Club is there for exactly this purpose - to weed out people like you who have no idea of what they're doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "685f5af46c704157e62049b3b1eace69", "text": "I don't know much about paypal or bitcoin, but I can provide a little information on BTC(Paypal I thought was just a service for moving real currency). BTC has an exchange, in which the price of a bitcoin goes up and down. You can invest in to it much like you would invest in the stock market. You can also invest in equipment to mine bitcoins, if you feel like that is worthwhile. It takes quite a bit of research and quite a bit of knowledge. If you are looking to provide loans with interest, I would look into P2P lending. Depending on where you live, you can buy portions of loans, and receive monthly payments with the similiar risk that credit card companies take on(Unsecured debt that can be cleared in bankruptcy). I've thrown a small investment into P2P lending and it has had average returns, although I don't feel like my investment strategy was optimal(took on too many high risk notes, a large portion of which defaulted). I've been doing it for about 8 months, and I've seen an APY of roughly 9%, which again I think is sub-optimal. I think with better investment strategy you could see closer to 12-15%, which could swing heavily with economic downturn. It's hard to say.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "779d5046f25234a651f2736f371e4849", "text": "For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19e274619afa82cd02d9aab9f56d1ebc", "text": "\"You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor. If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit \"\"taking into consideration the probability of default \"\". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "305d3ec3e1f18db076a292d195059ffe", "text": "See my post listing Trumps failures. Clearly lenders/investors/people get sucked into things all the time. P.S. Established Corps and LLC are granted credit all the time. In my example I never mentioned how old or established, or well funded any of these Corps were.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8586796e8d64cc6ebeb5ef6bc6cc0f27", "text": "Yes and no, P2P Capital Markets is similar concept but is more geared towards business loans. Community Lend used to offer this service but has stopped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b564a2afd57d6a5281c9edc56494995e", "text": "A real life experience. A friend of mine did that with his housemates. They bought a house together as students and it worked for them. The tricky bit is to have a very good contract with your housemates as to how the venture should work. What if? Somebody can't pay, somebody can't enjoy the house (on an extended trip), somebody wants out (marriage, etc.) It worked for my friend...", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a7393fedd61034cf30f7d3d6cf02fc80", "text": "To qualify as a woman owned business, a woman or group of women must own shares worth 51% of the business. If your investor was a woman, the entire 5% could come from her share of the company without affecting the 51% ownership requirement. Could you find a woman to add as an investor? If you each had your shares diluted 5%, She would be down to 48.45% ownership, and you would be down to 46.55% ownership. The only way for you to get back to a 51% female ownership situation would be to give a 2.55% ownership stake (from your share) to a wife, sister, mom, girlfriend, or any other woman who you think should benefit from this arrangement. This would still put you down at 44% (effectively taking the whole 5% from you) but by giving some of your share to someone else, it does require your partner to make some of the sacrifice, while still benefiting someone you care about (if you have someone you would like to give that benefit to). In summary, this is what it would look like:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc758a7a45f6084cb7df180f7abe3a47", "text": "In addition to finding another woman investor, you have an equitable option that is not unreasonable: ask your partner to buy out 3% worth of shares from you (which then gives her 54%, allowing you to then sell 5% to an investor and have it not dilute her below 51%: .54 * .95 = .513). That keeps you whole but also keeps your woman-owned-business status.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b618bb1f3e00f405cd448a8565847ae7", "text": "From a quick google, apparently 5% of government contracts need to go to women- or minority-owned small businesses, with another 18% going to small businesses more generally. If your company was bumped, it was b/c they were on the bubble in terms of quality/price, and inevitably the only reason were able to contract in years prior was b/c of the rules discriminating against large businesses over small businesses. The more concerning take away in all of this, is how on earth is it a struggle to hit the 5% target without any sort of affirmative action intervention. A bit of an eye-opener on the extent of systemic racism / inequality of opportunity that exists today. We really should be doing more to support minority owned businesses, and more importantly addressing the apparently inequity in opportunity in our business culture.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc4e7c3c3438a2c44994a1d5202a3626", "text": "If the implication is that she destroyed Yahoo, I have written in this piece that she has saved Yahoo from the inevitable painful death. Search and online advertisement business is a monopolistic business dominated by google (https://goo.gl/MTEvFp). Yahoo never had a real chance in the market to survive on its own. Marissa did an excellent job at Yahoo to stabilize the business and shift it away from Jerry Yang's misguided investments and bets (https://goo.gl/ufmYsw). I am certain that Marissa will make a great CEO for Uber, and help Uber survive the current severe head-winds the company is facing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55b863b72fd7ac44b337eda19c5237d5", "text": "Really? That's unfortunate. I've read stories of guys that buy companies that are basically failing, restart them so to speak with a new vision, and make a kill doing it. That's something that sounds really awesome to do. Otherwise, it's basically just like playing the stock market, but in a different version it seems like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3123e94a06d7b8ea1adf8bc34b2bbf2d", "text": "&gt; Women have to be represented in the global economy or it'll cost the world a shit ton of $ later on. Demonstrate how women are NOT represented in the global economy, and how this lack of representation will cost the world money later. &gt; There's a bunch of underbanked women around the world due to laws and Everex allows them to get microloans and/or execute deals in a micro finance fashion. Great for Everex, but I can't help but notice the practice is a bit discriminatory against men, is it not?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32a0d87b28f8b8554b0c9302b8b5f6ff", "text": "\"No, an entrepreneur actually adds value, whereas stock ownership does not. Buying stocks is akin to gambling, except with different rules and an average positive return over time, whereas normal casino gambling always has a net negative result on average. To put it shortly: If it doesn't make a difference whether its you or John from across the corner doing the action, then its basically a speculation with \"\"investment\"\" as an alias. You're merely the purse. If you are involved in the running of the project, taking decisions, organizing, putting your time and creativity in, then you're an entrepreneur. In this case, its clear to see that different persons will have different results, so they matter as persons and not just as purses. Note that if you buy enough stock to actually have a say in the running of the company, then you're crossing the threshold there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164", "text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b4d51623e06f6f39d4a88f52f500ac1", "text": "First of all, I've raised VC money before so I have experience in this area. The other commenter who said they'll only cause trouble is wrong, as a general statement. Some may, but that just means you've chosen your investors poorly. Choosing an investor is a very important decision and you should choose someone who you think will be able truly add value to your business, rather than just someone who is willing to write a check. Cultural alignment is important, and having a shared set of goals and timelines for the business is important. That said, no one here is going to be able to tell you how to structure your deal because it varies so much based on the business. In general I think it's a good idea to only take money when you need it and have a solid plan for how you're going to use it. Every time you take money you're diluting your ownership and reducing your long-term upside. Keep in mind that, as the other commenter said, if you take a deal now that means that you maintain 51% and then you take more money in the future, that 51% will be diluted further. That said with more investors in the mix you still are likely to be the largest shareholder, but again, that depends on how the deals are structured. My advice: seek out as much advice from as many sources as you can. And hire a good law firm to handle your financing transaction because their advice is invaluable as you negotiate terms. Finally, you should have more conditions than just retaining 51% ownership -- there are a lot of terms that get baked into these deals that have an impact on the long-term upside. Learn those terms. Do a bunch of googling and a bunch of reading. And ask for more advice. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ea2751cc25feb9917db6f01e92e9384", "text": "It is just marketing and market segmentation. We could all shop at WalMart, but some people prefer wider aisles and mood music so they shop at Macys. Other people are fine shopping at Target or online. Women face no different challenges. The challenges in investing depend on who you are, where you are in life and what your goals are. I think it is fine to target a certain demographic over another, but they are just trying to make a niche. I prefer to not think about worst case scenarios, and I view all financial advisors with a healthy skepticism, regardless of gender.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "568be6cee03e6a396cb0454b1526ef50", "text": "Yes, it is possible. But why would someone take full responsibility, if you're the one enjoying the profits? You'll have to pay your administrator a lot, and probably also develop a profit sharing plan to encourage success. What you're looking, essentially is to be a passive shareholder, and not participate in any management decisions at all. Depending on your location, it will pose additional disadvantages for you (for example, in the US, that would force you to structure your business as a C-Corp, vs more advantageous S-Corp).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "671191388071e1fd39df1510bf71f357", "text": "Depends on the type of company and hes smart enough to contribute particular gender roles to the success of particular companies. It is absolutely not rocket science. It is however a blanket statement to state that women run companies make him the most money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "281b87ce29ace56b33b832593ffd7a81", "text": "Avoiding tobacco, etc is fairly standard for a fund claiming ethical investing, though it varies. The hard one on your list is loans. You might want to check out Islamic mutual funds. Charging interest is against Sharia law. For example: http://www.saturna.com/amana/index.shtml From their about page: Our Funds favor companies with low price-to-earnings multiples, strong balance sheets, and proven businesses. They follow a value-oriented approach consistent with Islamic finance principles. Generally, these principles require that investors avoid interest and investments in businesses such as liquor, pornography, gambling, and banks. The Funds avoid bonds and other conventional fixed-income securities. So, it looks like it's got your list covered. (Not a recommendation, btw. I know nothing about Amana's performance.) Edit: A little more detail of their philosophy from Amana's growth fund page: Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not invest in a business that is prohibited by Islamic principles. Some of the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography, insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or finance associations. The Growth Fund does not make any investments that pay interest. In accordance with Islamic principles, the Fund shall not purchase conventional bonds, debentures, or other interest-paying obligations of indebtedness. Islamic principles discourage speculation, and the Fund tends to hold investments for several years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "791e2d34ab83db60f10da3263368f3fe", "text": "Less so today, but there was a time that women played a smaller role in the household finances, letting the husband manage the family money. Women often found themselves in a frightening situation when the husband died. Still, despite those who protest to the contrary, men and women tend to think differently, how they problem solve, how they view risk. An advisor who understands these differences and listens to the client of either sex, will better serve them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd094d8b9bc86136ff451df39877fe4a", "text": "There is a fundemental misunderstanding: the business and the owner are not the same entity. You said: I give the business $25,000 and take 50% of the business. No you can give the owner of the business 25K, and now he has 25K and 50% of a 50K business. That 25K sits in Mr. Smith's bank account, not Acme Widget's account. A more simple example is when you buy a car. The money goes to the car dealership, it does not get put into the car's glove box. You may be thinking of an investor in a business. He could pump $$ into the business as operating capital for a share of the business. In that case, it would be a bit unfair to get 50% of the business for a 25K. However, the owner may be interested in doing such a deal because value of the investor can add more than just $$ to the business. Having a celebrity investor might do more good for the business than the actual dollars. Another situation is that the owner might be desperate. Without a influx of cash the whole business might end. There are guidelines to business evaluation, but valuing them is not an easy thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cb77f86b004873f0c5ce8338acc1916", "text": "\"&gt; she makes some very good points to the whole \"\"Startup\"\" mentality. The 'fight' here is for responsibility. Ahoyhere is challenging people to be responsible for themselves, and to 'take the blame' if they have nothing to show for it when or if their vc startup employer goes bust (or, gets wildly successful and they don't share in the success.) People don't want that. They want to tell themselves they're justified for being bitter after being screwed. They want to know that 'hard work always pays off', which is obviously false.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d1b257f29aaef270074323d88d51d45", "text": "The good debt/bad debt paradigm only applies if you are considering this as a pure investment situation and not factoring in: A house is something you live in and a car is something you use for transportation. These are not substitutes for each other! While you can live in your car in a pinch, you can't take your house to the shops. Looking at the car, I will simplify it to 3 options: You can now make a list of pros and cons for each one and decide the value you place on each of them. E.g. public transport will add 5h travel time per week @ $X per hour (how much you value your leisure time), an expensive car will make me feel good and I value that at $Y. For each option, put all the benefits together - this is the value of that option to you. Then put all of the costs together - this is what the option costs you. Then make a decision on which is the best value for you. Once you have decided which option is best for you then you can consider how you will fund it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c7f69a4ac2f6301ad1db8d23d13323d7", "text": "Deposit it in a business savings account. The following below show you some options you can choose from. Next you can invest it in the market i.e. shares, bonds etc. If you have a more risky side, can go for peer to peer lending. If you are feeling really lucky and want to invest in the long term, then buy a property as a buy-to-let landlord. There are loads of options, you only need to explore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07f0be93c1c32693e76847b6527391cf", "text": "I found some UK personal accounts offer up to 3% interest (no names here, but it is well known bank with red logo). You can take out directors loan from your company, put the cash into that personal account and earn interest. Just don't forget to return this loan before end of financial year, so this interest does not become your dividends.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "eced5a5b1949a6d5aa8cb7ff9a8b1692", "text": "What you're getting at is the same as investing with leverage. Usually this comes in the form in a margin account, which an investor uses to borrow money at a low interest rate, invest the money, and (hopefully!) beat the interest rate. is this approach unwise? That completely depends on how your investments perform and how high your loan's interest rate is. The higher your loan's interest rate, the more risky your investments will have to be in order to beat the interest rate. If you can get a return which beats the interest rates of your loan then congratulations! You have come out ahead and made a profit. If you can keep it up you should make the minimum payment on your loan to maximize the amount of capital you can invest. If not, then it would be better to just use your extra cash to pay down the loan. [are] there really are investments (aside from stocks and such) that I can try to use to my advantage? With interest rates as low as they are right now (at least in the US) you'll probably be hard-pressed to find a savings account or CD that will return a higher interest rate than your loan's. If you're nervous about the risk associated with investing in stocks and bonds (as is healthy!), then know that they come in a wide spectrum of risk. It's up to you to evaluate how much risk you're willing to take on to achieve a higher return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1611faea12bf19b2154ee123778d95d2", "text": "\"HSBC, Hang Seng, and other HK banks had a series of special savings account offers when I lived in HK a few years ago. Some could be linked to the performance of your favorite stock or country's stock index. Interest rates were higher back then, around 6% one year. What they were effectively doing is taking the interest you would have earned and used it to place a bet on the stock or index in question. Technically, one way this can be done, for instance, is with call options and zero coupon bonds or notes. But there was nothing to strategize with once the account was set up, so the investor did not need to know how it worked behind the scenes... Looking at the deposit plus offering in particular, this one looks a little more dangerous than what I describe. See, now we are in an economy of low almost zero interest rates. So to boost the offered rate the bank is offering you an account where you guarantee the AUD/HKD rate for the bank in exchange for some extra interest. Effectively they sell AUD options (or want to cover their own AUD exposures) and you get some of that as extra interest. Problem is, if the AUD declines, then you lose money because the savings and interest will be converted to AUD at a contractual rate that you are agreeing to now when you take the deposit plus account. This risk of loss is also mentioned in the fine print. I wouldn't recommend this especially if the risks are not clear. If you read the fine print, you may determine you are better off with a multicurrency account, where you can change your HK$ into any currency you like and earn interest in that currency. None of these were \"\"leveraged\"\" forex accounts where you can bet on tiny fluctuations in currencies. Tiny being like 1% or 2% moves. Generally you should beware anything offering 50:1 or more leverage as a way to possibly lose all of your money quickly. Since you mentioned being a US citizen, you should learn about IRS form TD F 90-22.1 (which must be filed yearly if you have over $10,000 in foreign accounts) and google a little about the \"\"foreign account tax compliance act\"\", which shows a shift of the government towards more strict oversight of foreign accounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21085de52a29bd061a17dba0d67f4927", "text": "\"Basically, you either borrow money, or get other people to invest in your business by buying stock or something analogous. Sometimes you can get people to \"\"park\"\" money with you. For example, many people deposit money in a bank checking account. They don't get any interest or other profit from this, they just do it because the bank is a convenient place to store their money. The bank then loans some percentage of this money out and keeps the interest. I don't doubt that people have come up with more clever ways to use other people's money. Borrowing money for an investment or business venture is risky because if you lose money, you may be unable to pay it back. On the other hand, investors expect a share of the profit, not just a fixed interest rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd8e5ca4888ff871a3b76ce481bb3bd5", "text": "\"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other \"\"safe\"\" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2df7330af4b3b2e7c527eca5d177db4", "text": "\"As to where the interest comes from: The same place it comes from in other kinds of savings accounts. The bank takes the money you deposit and invests it elsewhere, traditionally by lending it out to others (hence the concept of a \"\"savings and loan\"\" bank). They make a profit as long as the interest they give for \"\"borrowing\"\" from you, plus the cost of administering the savings accounts and loans, is less than the interest they charge for lending to others. No, they don't have to pay you interest -- but if they didn't, you'd be likely to deposit your funds at another bank which did. Their ideal goal is to pay as little as possible without losing depositors, while charging as much as possible without losing borrowers. (yeah, I know, typo corrected) Why do they get higher interest rate than they pay you? Mostly because your deposits and interest are essentially guaranteed, whereas the folks they're lending to may be late paying or default on those loans. As with any kind of investment, higher return requires more work and/or higher risk, plus (ususally) larger reserves so you can afford to ride out any losses that do occur.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cde17aa6b9aefc3d4e12718987fbf44", "text": "\"This kind of investment is called \"\"sweat equity\"\". It is sometimes taken into account by lenders and other investors. Such investors look at the alleged value of the input labor with a very skeptical eye, but they often appreciate that the entrepreneur has \"\"skin in the game\"\". The sort of analysis described by the original poster is useful for estimating \"\"economic profit\"\" -- how much better off was the entrepreneur than if he had done something else with his time. But this sort of analysis is not applicable for tax purposes for most small businesses in the United States. It is usually not in the entrepreneur's interest to use this method of accounting for tax purposes, for three reasons: It requires setting up the business in such a way that it can pay him wages or salaries for his time. The business might not have enough cash resources to do so. Furthermore, setting up the business in this way requires legal and accounting expertise, which is expensive. If the entrepreneur does set up the business like this, the wages and salaries will be subject to tax. Wage and salary tax rates are often much higher than capital gains tax rates, especially when one considers taxes like Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and Business & Occupation taxes. If the entrepreneur does set up the business like this, the taxes on the wages and salaries would be due long before the hoped-for sale of the company. The sale of the company might never happen. This results in a time-value-of-money penalty, an optionality penalty, and a risk penalty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a106c0e9ebdf39b357e017209b2c4b00", "text": "Compound interest means that the interest in each time period is calculated taking into account previously earned interest and not only the initial sum. Thus, if you had $1000 and invested it so that you'd earn 5% each year, than if you would withdraw the earnings each year you in 30 years you would earn 0.05*30*1000 = $1500, so summarily you'd have $2500, or 150% profit. However, if you left all the money to earn interest - including the interest money - then at the end of 30 years you'd have $4321 - or 330% profit. This is why compound interest is so important - the interest on the earned interest makes money grow significantly faster. On the other hand, the same happens if you owe money - the interest on the money owed is added to the initial sum and so the whole sum owed grows quicker. Compound interest is also important when calculating interest by time periods. For example, if you are told the loan accumulates 1% interest monthly, you may think it's 12% yearly. However, it is not so, since monthly interest is compounded - i.e., in February the addition not only February's 1% but also 1% on 1% from January, etc. - the real interest is 12.68% yearly. Thus, it is always useful to know how interest is compounded - both for loans and investments - daily, monthly, yearly, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5625496dedd8862d5e88416d729fc2de", "text": "\"First off, the answer to your question is something EVERYONE would like to know. There are fund managers at Fidelity who will a pay $100 million fee to someone who can tell them a \"\"safe\"\" way to earn interest. The first thing to decide, is do you want to save money, or invest money. If you just want to save your money, you can keep it in cash, certificates of deposit or gold. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, gold tends to hold its value over time and will always have value. Even if Russia invades Switzerland and the Swiss Franc becomes worthless, your gold will still be useful and spendable. As Alan Greenspan famously wrote long ago, \"\"Gold is always accepted.\"\" If you want to invest money and make it grow, yet still have the money \"\"fluent\"\" which I assume means liquid, your main option is a major equity, since those can be readily bought and sold. I know in your question you are reluctant to put your money at the \"\"mercy\"\" of one stock, but the criteria you have listed match up with an equity investment, so if you want to meet your goals, you are going to have to come to terms with your fears and buy a stock. Find a good blue chip stock that is in an industry with positive prospects. Stay away from stuff that is sexy or hyped. Focus on just one stock--that way you can research it to death. The better you understand what you are buying, the greater the chance of success. Zurich Financial Services is a very solid company right now in a nice, boring, highly profitable business. Might fit your needs perfectly. They were founded in 1872, one of the safest equities you will find. Nestle is another option. Roche is another. If you want something a little more risky consider Georg Fischer. Anyway, what I can tell you, is that your goals match up with a blue chip equity as the logical type of investment. Note on Diversification Many financial advisors will advise you to \"\"diversify\"\", for example, by investing in many stocks instead of just one, or even by buying funds that are invested in hundreds of stocks, or indexes that are invested in the whole market. I disagree with this philosophy. Would you go into a casino and divide your money, putting a small portion on each game? No, it is a bad idea because most of the games have poor returns. Yet, that is exactly what you do when you diversify. It is a false sense of safety. The proper thing to do is exactly what you would do if forced to bet in casino: find the game with the best return, get as good as you can at that game, and play just that one game. That is the proper and smart thing to do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cf21e874ace52095a9263cd6b1e72b3", "text": "If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd5dca227bea699fa74a25b5d0cdc61d", "text": "This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f983c383262bb5e484be57c6f264612e", "text": "In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9369686ff9624d06b4a4d5eeb8a3d237", "text": "When you pay interest on a loan used to fund a legitimate investment or business activity, that interest becomes an expense that you can deduct against related income. For example, if you borrowed $10k to buy stocks, you could deduct the interest on that $10k loan from investment gains. In your case, you are borrowing money to invest in the stock of your company. You would be able to deduct the interest expense against investment gain (like selling stock or receiving dividends), but not from any income from the business. (See this link for more information.) You do not have to pay taxes on the interest paid to your father; that is an expense, not income. However, your father has to pay taxes on that interest, because that is income for him.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39a433a84ddadd612b78e80c78d4808f", "text": "\"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an \"\"expected profit rate\"\" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with \"\"typical\"\" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e6b3ccc88372faf54375ebaed55528a", "text": "A 15% discount is a 17.6% return. (100/85 = 1.176). For a holding period that's an average 15.5 days, a half month. It would be silly to compound this over a year as the numbers are limited. The safest way to do this is to sell the day you are permitted. In effect, you are betting, 12 times a year, that the stock won't drop 15% in 3 days. You can pull data going back decades, or as long as your company has been public, and run a spreadsheet to see how many times, if at all, the stock has seen this kind of volatility over 3 day periods. Even for volatile stocks, a 15% move is pretty large, you're likely to find your stock doing this less than once per year. It's also safest to not accumulate too many shares of your company for multiple reasons, having to do with risk spreading, diversification, etc. 2 additional points - the Brexit just caused the S&P to drop 4% over the last 3 days trading. This was a major world event, but, on average we are down 4%. One would have to be very unlucky to have their stock drop 15% over the specific 3 days we are discussing. The dollars at risk are minimal. Say you make $120K/yr. $10K/month. 15% of this is $1500 and you are buying $1765 worth of stock. The gains, on average are expected to be $265/mo. Doesn't seem like too much, but it's $3180 over a years' time. $3180 in profit for a maximum $1500 at risk at any month's cycle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "990d7cea7a0d872a8b50cca148e7d234", "text": "\"This is a common and good game-plan to learn valuable life skills and build a supplemental income. Eventually, it could become a primary income, and your strategic risk is overall relatively low. If you are diligent and patient, you are likely to succeed, but at a rate that is so slow that the primary beneficiaries of your efforts may be your children and their children. Which is good! It is a bad gameplan for building an \"\"empire.\"\" Why? Because you are not the first person in your town with this idea. Probably not even the first person on the block. And among those people, some will be willing to take far more extravagant risks. Some will be better capitalized to begin with. Some will have institutional history with the market along with all the access and insider information that comes with it. As far as we know, you have none of that. Any market condition that yields a profit for you in this space, will yield a larger one for them. In a downturn, they will be able to absorb larger losses than you. So, if your approach is to build an empire, you need to take on a considerably riskier approach, engage with the market in a more direct and time-consuming way, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if those risks play out the wrong way.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "01aec37e09311c858b5e357f73a4b357", "text": "\"Arguably, \"\"because they can\"\". Canada's banking industry is dominated by five chartered banks who by virtue of their size, pretty much determine how banking is done in Canada. Yes, they have to abide by government regulation, but they carry enough weight to influence government and to some extent shape the regulation they have to follow. While this situation makes Canada's financial system very stable and efficient, it also permits anti-competitive behavior. There was a time (when U.S. banks were not permitted to operate across state lines) when the smallest of Canada's \"\"big 5\"\" was bigger than the biggest U.S. bank, despite our economy having always been about 1/10 the size of the U.S. That scale and their small number gives the \"\"big 5\"\" the ability to invest heavily in and collaborate on whatever they decide to be in their own interest. So, if they want to charge fees, they do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0289022308ebf38fe78e9fa60167689b", "text": "Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low. Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account. The bank must maintain branches with tellers. The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities). The bank has to pay salaries. The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change. And pay for insurance against robbery. All of that costs money. At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money. Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out. At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin. They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts. An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees. But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable. So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead. UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afce39b90196e467c1051a1aebd1ea6b", "text": "The other answers in this thread do a fine job of explaining the economic situation that banks are in. In addition to that information, I would like to point out that it is not hard to avoid a monthly fee for Canadian bank accounts. Usually this involves keeping a minimum balance of a few thousand dollars at all times. Actual examples (as of Dec 2016) for the lowest tier chequing accounts. Includes information on the minimum balance to waive the monthly fee, and the monthly fee otherwise:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07387f98d8f5d6003a51cc409fc5a910", "text": "You have to check your contract to be sure what is it you're paying for. Typically, you get some of the following features which can be unavailable to you in banks which don't charge a monthly fee: Arguably, these expenses could be paid by the interest rates your money earn to the bank. Notice how banks which don't charge a fee usually require you to have a minimum amount of cash in your account or a minimum monthly cash flow. When you pay for your bank's services in cash, there's no such restrictions. I'm not sure if typical banks in the UK would take away your credit card if you lose your job and don't qualify for that kind of card any more, but I do know banks who would. The choice is yours, and while it's indeed sad that you don't have this kind of choice in Canada, it's also not like you're paying solely for the privilege of letting them invest your money behind your back.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "777609ebf107f439f7d88abfd8f47406", "text": "\"In the end, all these fees hurt the average consumer, since the merchant ultimately passes cost to consumer. Savvy consumers can stay at par or get ahead, if they put in the effort. It's a pain, but I rotate between 4 cards depending on time of year and type of purchase, to optimize cash back. My cards are: 1. 5% rewards card on certain categories, rotates each quarter 2. 2% travel/dining card (fee card, but I travel a bunch so it's worth it, no foreign transaction fees) 3. 1.5% rewards card for everything else 4. Debit card (swiped as a CC) for small purchases (i.e. lunches) at credit union for \"\"enhanced\"\" high interest checking account, requiring certain # swipes/month. This alone returns to me ~$800/yr.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18669cc27884e61802f45f91344c1972", "text": "Banks don't care that you are responsible cardholder. They care to make money. Interest rates are basically 0% by government policy and the banks charge their responsible cardholders 20% interest rates. Think about that for one second, and realize they really do not care about your ability to avoid paying interest, they only need you to 'slip up' one month during your entire lifetime to make a profit from you. It is in their interest for you to get into a spending habit, from 0% promo rates, so that eventually a frivolous purchase or life changing event causes a balance to stay on the card for over one month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "609c715b134b85f0951fb29bdb2469e5", "text": "Most of these blogs/websites that you mention above promote banks that pay a commission and hence you never realize there are better banks out there that offer a higher rate. I went through the same exercise to find the bank that paid the best rate and realized the truth I mention above. I currently bank with Alliant Credit Union, which doesn't pay a commission or have affiliate fees. If you find a bank that pays a higher rate than ACU, let me know, I'd like to switch to that bank as well! To give an example, ACU's regular savings rate is equivalent to EverBank's 2 year CD! See what I mean when I say affiliate and commissions run the show? Disclosure: BTW, I'm a customer of this bank, not an employee. I do have a blog if you wish to read my experience with ACU.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "298bc6aaa358239ee51268053527c422", "text": "I haven't read the terms here but the question may not have a good answer. That won't stop me from trying. Call the real rate (interest rate - inflation) and you'll have what is called negative real rates. It's rare for the overnight real rate to be negative. If you check the same sources for historical data you'll find it's usually higher. This is because borrowing money is usually done to gain an economic benefit, ie. make a profit. That is no longer a consideration when borrowing money short term and is IMO a serious problem. This will cause poor investment decisions like you see in housing. Notice I said overnight rate. That is the only rate set by the BoC and the longer rates are set by the market. The central bank has some influence because a longer term is just a series of shorter terms but if you looked up the rate on long Canadian real return bonds, you'd see them with a real rate around 1%. What happens when the central bank raise or lowers rates will depend on the circumstances. The rate in India is so high because they are using it to defend the rupee. If people earn more interest they have a preference to buy that currency rather than others. However these people aren't stupid, they realize it's the real rate that matters. That's why Japan can get away with very low rates and still have demand for the currency - they have, or had, deflation. When that changed, the preference for their currency changed. So if Canada hast forex driven inflation then the BoC will have to raise rates to defend the dollar for the purpose of lowering inflation from imports. Whether it works or not is another story. Note that the Canadian dollar is very dependant on the total dollar value of net oil exports. If Canada has inflation due too an accelerating economy this implies that there are profitable opportunities so businesses and individuals will be more likely to pay a positive real rate of interest. In that scenario the demand for credit money will drive the real rate of return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14f6c5ee4bcdb17b63ff8518e5ff0858", "text": "Banks need to provide a free mechanism to deposit and withdrawal money. Banks are free to charge fees as long as it is well published. If you are not happy with services you can complain to Banking ombudsman.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d792ae9e61e82e4fe8b8f717c734814", "text": "That's the same question I've been pondering. How did they handle it in Canada umpteen years ago on their test run? Obviously they're not giving out a lump sum at the beginning of the year, but what about month to month?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ddbb2ab2f56ca83404d5538de734baa", "text": "I had an RRSP account with a managed services account at a major Cdn bank that increased its fees to $125 a year per account. Because I could not trade any of my funds living in the US, it made no sense to throw away $500 a year for nothing (two accounts for me and two accounts for my wife - regular RRSP and locked in RRSP). I was able to move all my accounts to TD discount brokerage without any issue. I did this two years ago.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fd09b10078171bba36eadd0d1d691d9", "text": "\"Charging interest by non financial institutions is allowable. There is only one definition of illegal or criminal interest and this is regarding loan sharks. Section 347 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to charge more than 60% annually. The biggest debate was whether or not \"\"pay day\"\" loan companies were breaking the law. The recent bill C-26 amends this section to exempt \"\"pay day\"\" loans from this definition.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccb53ec70fd1c7e3b4addbd3a77698da", "text": "\"There are two reasons you would get a higher yield for savings accounts: either because it is not guaranteed by a national deposit insurance fund (CDIC I presume in Canada), or you have to hold it for a longer term. Money Market Accounts are insured in the U.S. and are also very liquid since you can debit from it any time. Because of this, they offer much lower rates of interest than comparable products. If you look at the savings products such as the 1.50% momentum savings account offered by ScotiaBank, you actually have to hold a $5000 balance and not make any debit from it for 90 days in order to get the extra 0.75% that would get you to 1.50%. Essentially this is roughly equivalent to offering you a 1.50% GIC with a 0.75% withdrawal penalty fee, but simply presented in more \"\"positive\"\" terms. As for the Implicity Financial Financial 1.75% offering, it looks like it is not insured by the CDIC.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15fd5a238ccc43822493b9417a03bef2", "text": "In Canada section 347 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it illegal to charge more than 60% annually. Since most Canadian credit card annual interest fee is below this they are within that legal limit. However this is limited only to the rate and not necessarily a cap on the absolute interest charges.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10ecf9570eab2bcf9769c9cd4862c2c3", "text": "Banks do of course incur costs on currency transactions. But they're not as high as the fee charged to the customer. Most banks in most places lose a lot of money on operating bank accounts for customers, and make the money back by charging more than their costs for services like currency exchange. If you don't choose to pay those fees, use an online service instead. But bear in mind that if everyone does so then banks will be forced to charge higher fees for current accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "188502c8878306a1a913ada819b89d34", "text": "Sorry, in the US (Bank of America). The kind of account we have has that high fee, but they also have free account options that have lower or zero balance requirements, you just have to setup direct deposit. The one we have has free checks, free safe deposit box, an English speaking customer service rep guaranteed to answer my call in something like 3 rings, and a bunch of other stuff I'll never use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61c5fa483ae886d1c28b6c20ada4eb32", "text": "Too much work for me. I simply pay TD $109/yr. And make more than that on getting my money to work ~~with~~ for me. If I had been smart I would have opened a credit union account when I first got here, like I had in the states.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dc05df9fc6e20481d08de42919c5f53", "text": "Almost every company I know of charges something like 2% per month on past due accounts. They are not financial institutions, so it's probably quite legal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01a75da40e4796f26d06554710e135ba", "text": "\"From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for \"\"backdoor\"\" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire \"\"backdoor\"\" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the \"\"backdoor\"\" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4c30ad0006a1e499ae485f0a559057c3", "text": "\"You can accept almost anything mutually agreeable to you and the other party as payment. That's the definition of \"\"barter\"\". If you agree to trade manufactured goods for livestock, as long as both parties agree on the terms, I'm not aware of any law that would prohibit it. I hedged with \"\"almost\"\" because of course you can't accept something that is explicitly illegal. Like you can't say you'll accept cocaine as payment. Less obviously, there are laws regulating the sale of guns, nuclear fuel, agricultural products, etc. You'd still have to pay taxes, and it can get complicated to determine the taxable value of the transaction. Sorry, but you can't avoid taxes by getting your income in something other than cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "614f21e70ade61361992513495a9cbf2", "text": "Of course you can accept gold as payment. Would anyone pay in gold? Would it have tax consequences on your federal taxes? These additional questions are off-topic on this site about personal finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27c36d33072f1f3c03abebb2b95e40c9", "text": "\"Yes. \"\"There is, ...no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.\"\" Taken from the US Department of the Treasury.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b58296e546e1efce9613746b1a82bd7", "text": "Yes. But the question is do you want to have gold? If you are going to buy gold anyway, and if you can get a good conversion rate between USD:gold, then why not? If you are looking to use your earnings on things that you cannot buy using gold, then I'd recommend you take USD instead. Have fun!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1f82eef360c642b80cbd1041bd8dcd02", "text": "\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99ae11da9e2344a919be8ae6153f2302", "text": "\"The reason I don't want to get into here it is because internet debates over these things turn into an absolute shit-show, instantly. In a nutshell, the (sane parts of) argument comes down to very difficult-to-prove assumptions about how perfectly fiat currency can/will be implemented. - The (sane) case for gold is that it is very difficult to get into the kind of money-printing mischief that places like Zimbabwe and Argentina have got into when your currency is based on something with a finite and slow-growing supply. It's hard to print more gold. - The (sane) case for fiat currency is that it is ridiculous to hamstring the entire economy by tying it to one arbitrary commodity with a fluctuating value and supply that does not correlate well with overall economic output. A perfectly-implemented fiat currency, printed and ordained by a perfectly omniscient, perfectly competent, and perfectly benevolent central bank (let's call it \"\"God money\"\"), is the ideal. That's pretty much axiomatic, and even sane gold-bugs would tend to allow the above, so far as it goes, including all stipulations. In fact, someone inclined to believe in divine intervention might make a case that gold is precisely that: a hard-to-forge, easy-to-detect, easy-to-handle metal placed on earth by God in quantities just right to serve as currency. The problem is that a really *bad* fiat currency is absolutely terrible: leads to nightmare-scenarios; people starving on one side of a fence while tons of crops are being burned on the other side because of runaway price-discrepancies, stuff like that. Again, even (sane) Keynesians will allow as much. The problem is that the crazies, ideologues, and single-issue zealots come out of the woodwork when you start getting into this stuff, and tend to dominate the conversation (if \"\"conversation\"\" is a fair word to use). In a sense, the \"\"sane\"\" spectrum of debate boils down to an almost ideological divide: - Whether you believe that a sort of permanent, technocratic, central-bank/currency-issuer is possible/plausible. Because if it *is* achievable, it is almost certainly better than just tying the whole economy to the price of a single commodity. If it is *not* achievable, then it is almost certainly better to let the markets adjust and correct, however imperfectly, than to tie the whole economy to the whims and wishes of incompetent and politically-motivated money-printers. (I hope that makes sense, and that it is a fair representation of the conundrum). The problem with making an argument is that you've got a hodge-podge of technical (and sometimes fairly complicated) nitty-gritty, plus a certain amount of starting-assumption/worldview/ideological stuff, all smooshed together, and almost all of it is very hard/impossible to \"\"prove\"\" via evidential scientific testing. Both the technical and historical stuff have strong conflicting indicators, and it's obviously not possible to, say, set up two identical societies and let them run for a thousand years, controlling for everything but monetary policy, and see what happens. Macro-economics is a very imperfect science. It has certainly given the world some very useful and valuable insights and axioms, but the testing methods are extremely indirect and heavily subject to interpretation: you really have only the historical record to draw on, and it is almost impossible to find examples that control for whatever variable is in question. Macro, ideally, *tries* really hard to be science, but you're always kind of picking from bad examples when testing a hypothesis, trying to line up vaguely similar historical periods to isolate for some common factor. It's kind of like geology or theoretical physics, except with much smaller and messier data-sets. Ten thousand years from now, it will be much easier to look at the historical data and isolate for particular variables over multiple hundred-year spans across a variety of cultural, political, and socio-economic backgrounds. For now, the peanut-gallery is chock full of questions that the experts cannot answer, and the record is full of exceptions to every rule, and a lot of it frankly boils down to worldview and ideology (with a healthy dollop of \"\"I'm smarter than you\"\" to finish the sauce). Since I personally prefer technical questions to politics, I will leave it to others to formulate and debate those things.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50b52264b9409f57b1b597876e96528a", "text": "Technically, you could improve your odds in this hypothetical pre-apocolyptic economy by diversifying your digital and tangible precious-metal-commodity portfolio by going in with gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and others. That being said I'm not sure if one can access tangible stores of all these metals...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34f75daeea825fb48d7bdfcbe8d81d1d", "text": "I thought the same. Money as a transferable item is against future items, and debt is a transferable item against future money, which is also seen as a much farther into the future item. Money = tomorrows item. Debt = tomorrows money = (tomorrows item)(time +1); or longer if we agree to pay it off over 20 years Interestingly I have seen a writeup on why gold is the material of choice. If someone can find this it would be great but I will try write from memory, Google is not helping. The story is something like this: Essentially when trading a material for jewellery we had difficulty finding what material to use. Obviously it must be something hardy and tough, but not common. Metals are the obvious choice, although crystalline structures like gems and opals are useful. The reason for metals are that they can easily and repeatably be shaped into a form that will be aesthetically pleasing and hold its shape. But which specific metal is to be chosen; obviously it must be chemically stable, so potassium magnesium and those metal like elements are removed from contention. It must be rare so items like lead, iron and copper are too common, although not worthless. The most stable, malleable and rare materials are Platinum, Silver and Gold. Platinum requires too high a melting point to be suitable; the requirements to smelt and handle it as a material are too high. Not to deny the value but the common use it prohibitive. Silver is easier to handle, but tends to tarnish. Continuous upkeep is required and this becomes a detraction of its full value. Finally Gold, rare, low melting point, resistant to tarnishing and oxidation, rare, malleable and pretty. A sweet spot of all materials.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "341db8f4c2c2686e74b451a59f893298", "text": "Dream on. You are parroting government apologists. The only real complaint against gold is that it forces governments to limit their expenditures to what they can collect in revenue. All the critics of gold are in favor of big government and deficit spending. Gold is money. It is the only real money. And within five years there will be a de facto gold standard in international commerce.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25a38b50c7fa018f6d9168ae1325fc2f", "text": "\"Since you are going to be experiencing a liquidity crisis that even owning physical gold wouldn't solve, may I suggest bitcoins? You will still be liquid and people anywhere will be able to trade it. This is different from precious metals, whereas even if you \"\"invested\"\" in gold you would waste considerable resources on storage, security and actually making it divisible for trade. You would be illiquid. Do note that the bitcoin currency is currently more volatile than a Greek government bond.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c819a504e498ac7204871e2015cb07e", "text": "You stumbled on your second paragraph when you said gold is debt. It's not. It is an asset you can hold in your hand that has zero counterparty risk. Didn't read the rest because if you fell over so early, it's likely I'd be here all day correcting the rest of it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "250e59e43c4663a659e26028f92aa583", "text": "I would track it using a regular asset account. The same way I would track the value of a house, a car, or any other personal asset. ETA: If you want automatic tracking, you could set it up as a stock portfolio holding shares of the GLD ETF. One share of GLD represents 1/10 ounce of gold. So, if you have 5 ounces of gold, you would set that up in Quicken as 50 shares of GLD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08cec8c13d6cc51c6f85f6b481c17691", "text": "Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "842264f7e67962cdd9820c15a852e5f3", "text": "The Federal Reserve website notes that creditors must accept cash for debts on services already rendered, but that businesses may refuse cash for services not yet rendered unless prohibited by local law. The Treasury website includes examples of businesses limiting what cash they will accept: For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02a356426e29ae90e2620cb53aff3028", "text": "I still don't fully understand how gold is debt. I get that you made the connection that gold is money, and previously explained how money is debt. But that doesn't make gold debt. Gold is a commodity just as oil, apples, deer, shoes, etc. It might not provide any utility, but is still something people have come to value in and of itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c507717d9501648c82e19ba942fa209", "text": "This is an excellent question; kudos for asking it. How much a person pays over spot with gold can be negotiated in person at a coin shop or in an individual transaction, though many shops will refuse to negotiate. You have to be a clever and tough negotiator to make this work and you won't have any success online. However, in researching your question, I dug for some information on one gold ETF OUNZ - which is physically backed by gold that you can redeem. It appears that you only pay the spot price if you redeem your shares for physical gold: But aren't those fees exorbitant? After all, redeeming for 50 ounces of Gold Eagles would result in a $3,000 fee on a $65,000 transaction. That's 4.6 percent! Actually, the fee simply reflects the convenience premium that gold coins command in the market. Here are the exchange fees compared with the premiums over spot charged by two major online gold retailers: Investors do pay an annual expense ratio, but the trade-off is that as an investor, you don't have to worry about a thief breaking in and stealing your gold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5474673d5aa76b4f48ff13ccc540e477", "text": "\"Is option trading permitted in the account? Most 401(k) do not permit this. 1 - it means none traded today. 2 - there are 50 outstanding contracts. Each one has a guy who is long and a guy who is short. 3 - not really, it might depend on the stock. 4 - no. With commissions so low, and the inherent leverage of options, one contract reflecting 100 shares of the underlying stock, the minimum is what you can sleep soundly with. 5 - because GLD does not reflect precisely 1/10 oz of gold's price. If you look at the prospectus, it reads \"\"The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of gold bullion, less the Trust’s expenses.\"\" Since there are no dividends to take expenses from, the GLD price will erode by .4% each year compared to the price of 1/10oz gold.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "584bd446fe497404fff91a9215141feb", "text": "\"Apartment complexes have had a long history of not accepting cash for payment of rent. This eliminates the problem of robbery and strongly reduces the risks of embezzlement. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states: No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts Previous editions of banknotes stated that the notes were redeemable in gold or in lawful money. The Mint Act of 1792 set gold and silver as legal currency (and that one did not have to accept \"\"base metal coins\"\" for more than $10 which is why coin rolls only go up to $10). The Coinage Act of 1873 dropped silver and made gold the legal standard for currency. In 1933, the \"\"redeemable in gold\"\" was changed by federal statute and the legend you mention was added. Prior to 1933, someone could demand that you pay them in gold and not with a bank note. Legislation in 1933 ended that. This clause in the Constitution leads some political groups to wish to return to a gold standard. I recommend reading the book Greenback as it describes how our currency got the way it did and why that clause appears on currency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e23806abc4aac758bb9c06fc926f314", "text": "begin having them take community college courses while they are still in high school - this should be a better use of time than AP courses. if they continue and get an associates degree the credits should be transferrable anywhere take the associates degree to a state school and have them finish just their two years (4 semesters) at the state school. that should be an non-stressful and affordable approach that will give them a time/age-based advantage over their peers. so instead of playing with financial aid and retirement plan rules, this sort of goal can help you save, without creating inconsequential and unnecessary expectations for yourself or your family", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9b9f9d0390fd07319e4f35714bb1d4c3", "text": "\"BlackJack's answer is technically correct: government credit ratings are independent of corporate credit ratings. The rating should reflect the borrower's ability to repay its obligations. One reason the book you read may have stated that corporate credit ratings cannot be better than the government's credit rating is that the government, unlike the corporation, can steal (or in government parlance \"\"tax\"\") from anywhere or anyone. So if a government finds itself in financial difficulty it could simply take the cash from corporations or people with high credit ratings by a variety of methods: implement windfall profit taxes, take over industries, take peoples gold, tax pension savings, or simply take peoples pensions or retirement savings. This increases the risk of doing business in a country with an over-extended government. Over extended governments do not die gracefully. They only die when there is nothing left to steal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8723a73705f4f18937f82286dc564b0c", "text": "\"In one personal finance book I read that if a company is located in a country with credit rating X it can't have credit rating better (lower - i.e. further from AAA level) than X. This is simply wrong. Real world evidence proves it wrong. Automatic Data Processing (ADP), Exxon Mobile (XOM), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), and Microsoft (MSFT) all have a triple-A rating today, even though the United States doesn't. Toyota (TM) remained triple-A for many years even after Japanese debt was downgraded. The explanation was the following: country has rating X because risk of doing business with it is X and so risk of doing business with any company located in that country automatically can't be better than X. When reading financial literature, you should always be critical. Let's evaluate this statement. First off, a credit rating is not the \"\"risk of doing business.\"\" That is way too generic. Specifically, a credit rating attempts to define an individual or company's ability to repay it's obligations. Buying treasuries constitutes as doing business with the gov't, but you can argue that buying stamps at USPS is also doing business with the gov't, and a credit rating won't affect the latter too much. So a credit rating reflects the ability of an entity to repay it's obligations. What does the ability of a government to repay have to do with the ability of companies in that country to repay? Not much. Certainly, if a company keeps it's surplus cash all in treasuries, then downgrading the government will affect the company, but in general, the credit rating of a company determines the company's ability to pay.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "20699ddd02b61af4bdf4d3704421330d", "text": "You borrow on the international makets. [Moody's predicts Scotland would get an 'A' credit rating](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27247870) [Standard &amp; Poors - Independent Scotland could be AAA rated](http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors) [Credit Suisse report independent Scotland would be ranked four places higher than the rUK.](http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9637-scotland-ahead-of-ruk-even-without-oil-says-credit-suisse-report) [An independent Scotland would be a wealthy and financially viable country like New Zealand, but could suffer initial growing pains, according to credit ratings agency Standard &amp; Poor's.](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/27/independent-scottish-economy-viable-slow-first-standard-poors)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "953b47450cda011d6803d18a238445f0", "text": "When you start living in US, it doesn't actually matter what was your Credit history in another country. Your Credit History in US is tied to your SSN (Social Security Number), which will be awarded once you are in the country legally and apply for it. Getting an SSN also doesn't guarantee you nothing and you have to build your credit history slowly. Opening a Checking or Savings account will not help you in building a credit history. You need to have some type of Credit Account (credit card, car loan, mortgage etc.) linked to your SSN to start building your credit history. When you are new to US, you probably won't find any bank that will give you a Credit Card as you have no Credit history. One alternative is to apply for a secured credit card. A secured credit card is one you get by putting money or paying money to a bank and open a Credit Card against that money, thereby the bank can be secure that they won't lose any money. Once you have that, you can use that to build up your credit history slowly and once you have a good credit history and score, apply for regular Credit Card or apply for a car loan, mortgage etc. When I came to US 8 years ago, my Credit History was nothing, even though I had pretty good balance and credit history back in my country. I applied for secured credit card by paying $500 to a bank ( which got acquired by CapitalOne ), got it approved and used it for everything, for three years. I applied for other cards in the mean time but got rejected every time. Finally got approved for a regular credit card after three years and in one year added a mortgage and car loan, which helped me to get a decent score now. And Yes, a good Credit Score is important and essential for renting an apartment, leasing a car, getting a Credit Card etc. but normally your employer can always arrange for an apartment given your situation or you need to share apartment with someone else. You can rent a car without and credit score, but need a valid US / International Drivers license and a Credit Card :-) Best option will be to open a secured credit card and start building your credit. When your wife and family arrives, they also will be assigned individual SSN and can start building their credit history themselves. Please keep in mind that Credit Score and Credit History is always individual here...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7398abe8544fccf27a34b60e839f28b3", "text": "You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3d0faea96982b5a5ffaa1971f1df44c", "text": "No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "872d37b659b196edc2b87bc5f87f3ac7", "text": "It won't hurt your credit rating. I wouldn't worry about it. The company can certainly pursue debt collections across borders but unless its a massive sum.. they will write it off. Now.. what the right thing to do is to take care of it... 1. for karma's sake and 2. so you don't make a bad name for foreigners.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a645e71c88b090fb161d6d1f0924ae6", "text": "\"Rating agencies are pretty garbage, the market is always a few steps ahead of them. However, India is rated lower as it has not been an economic \"\"power\"\" for a long time ans is still developing. However the market rates on bonds tell a different story, and that is that India is safer than Spain to lend to. It is also easier to go after assets in Spain a Eurozone country than India, however Indian debt in Rupees should be safer than Spanish debt in Euros as India can fire up the printer if necessary. Indian yield on the 10 year is ~ 8.5% inflation is 7.5% giving a real yield of 1% Spanish 10 year is 6.87% and Eurozone inflation is 2.4% giving a real yield of 4.47%. The market doesn't agree with S&amp;P.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5c96d25cabfb16b086f42e029b0ba1a", "text": "\"Not entirely. For a creditor to go after the \"\"parent company\"\" in one of these cases requires the courts to be willing to \"\"pierce the corporate veil\"\" (in legal parlance). Typically this is only done if the parent company set up the wholly-owned-subsidiary in order to perpetrate a fraud. In this case, the subsidiary has a totally legitimate function - to sequester risk. While you're right that the parent company may have to offer some form of credit guarantees to get the subsidiary to get a loan, often those guarantees still don't create nearly as much exposure for the parent company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b228fd9c49d849a76e562c6128b35a42", "text": "The key here is that you are defacto running your own company no matter if you acknowledge it or not. In the end these questions have the goal of deciding if you can and will repay the loan. Presumably you filed taxes on your income. These can be shown to the loan officer as proof you have the ability to repay your loan. Running your freelancing as a business has advantages of being able to deduct normal expenses for running the business from your revenue. I am not sure how business cards improves your credit worthiness as they can be had for $10 in about an hour.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84f9f90ed7adee81f9e28ff3973c2926", "text": "Regardless, it doesn't indicate any financial stress or credit-related issues. Just because you are pissed off about the way the financial industry works, doesn't mean the banks are in poor shape. If France and Germany come crashing down, then you may have some evidence to back your point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55dc1bbd3528ca485ea549a23d352fa9", "text": "In the United Kingdom, there is a leading company that has been offering Progressive business funding solutions to the businesses for the last 120 years. Their service areas are South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, Australia, USA, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f69b9b3b61d001e92118515fb873e53", "text": "gnasher729's answer is fundamentally correct and deserves the checkmark, but I'd like to give an economic explanation for how this economically functions. The key point from gnasher729's answer's that the interest rate is 49.9% for one company. While this may be much higher than the equilibrium rate, the true market interest rate, it is not completely unreasonable because of the risk. For credit to be continually produced, default risk must be compensated because this is a cost to the lender. Most are not in business to lose money, so making loans to borrowers that default 40% of the time would make this interest rate reasonable. For UK citizens, this would not be such a problem because the lender can usually pursue the borrower for the balance, but if the borrower can disavow the loan and leave the legal reach of the UK creditors, the collection rate is 0%. The guarantee by the foreign persons not present in the UK is incidental and probably more of a regulatory requirement since the inability to collect from them is just as unlikely. One should always look for the lowest price with at least minimum quality when shopping for anything, but you are right to be apprehensive legally. Read every line and be sure that you yourself understand every clause before signing. If alternative cheaper financing is available, it is probably superior.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb1a38f02429161760fdfff00d8be026", "text": "Dunn & Bradstreet offers detailed credit reports on businesses. They are not cheap, but they appear to have information on RIOCAN.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "132e687702aa3c1ab0f5f97c9facfc6f", "text": "If you are interested in this stuff, S&amp;P produce a sovereign rating methodolgy, in which they will tell you exactly what factors they look at. Once you read this, you can obtain their latest rating report on India and Spain to understand how they applied said methodology in each case. (Not sure if this is free)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18127088510ed511e14029a376fff64e", "text": "A) The Credit Rating Agencies only look at the month-end totals that are on your credit card, as this is all they ever get from the issuing bank. So a higher usage frequency as described would not make any direct difference to your credit rating. B) The issuing bank will know if you use the credit with the higher frequency, but it probably has little effect on your limit. Typically, after two to three month, they reevaluate your credit limit, and it could go up considerably if you never overdrew (and at this time, it could indirectly positively affect your credit rating). You could consider calling the issuing bank after two month and try to explain the history a bit and get them to increase the limit, but that only makes sense if your credit score has recovered. Your business paperwork could go a long way to convince someone, if you do so well now. C) If your credit rating is still bad, you need to find out why. It should have normalized to a medium range with the bad historic issues dropped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ade3fe075a328cb9ac02c1c950bfead", "text": "Credit scores in the U.S. are entirely based on information contained in your credit report. The details of your credit card transactions, such as where your individual purchases are from, the amount of individual purchases, refunds, chargebacks (successful or failed), etc. do not appear on your credit report. Therefore, they can have no impact on your credit score. According to creditsavvy.com.au, credit scores in Australia are based on similar information: the information in your credit history, credit profile, and credit applications. I don't see anything that would suggest that the details of your transactions would affect your credit score.", "title": "" } ]