Speaking from experience, yes

(this was 9 years ago though and may have changed due to stricter laws).

I lived in London and was moving to NYC and wanted to have a functioning bank account upon arrival.

I banked in London with HSBC and asked them if they could set me up.

They connected me with the right people in the US and after many forms I had a fully functional US bank account with a foreign address and without having a social security number - and

I was (am) just your average person.

You will most likely not be able to get a credit card through them because of lack of credit history (unless you are ridiculously rich or go for a secured credit card), but a debit card should be possible.

My advice is to talk to your local bank and see if they can help you, although it will help if they operate in the US.

Good luck!

I have heard from various expats that American Express may be willing to issue cards in the states based on their existing relation with clients in other countries, but I digress.

If you have an Amex in Switzerland or Sweden

I would recommend talking to them.

There are several major US banks including Bank of America, citi and Banco Popular that will open an account for people without a SSN.

Most will require an in branch visit to open the account .

As some one else mentioned American Express will open accounts in other countries based on an existing relationship or at least they used to.

Can you get a bank account in the US?

Yes.

Can you get a bank account with a specific bank in the US?

That depends on the bank.

There's more paperwork involved, and not all banks offer the service.

I would guess that the big retail banks (US Bank, Bank of America, JP Morgan / Chase, et al) are most likely to, but they are also the ones with the worst reputations for customer service.

See this website.

In my opinion you should physically exist there to open your account.

The bank needs to fulfill all requirements such as checking your identity, taking your signatures for future transactions etc.

However, there might be some exceptions as Banking industry works pretty much on personal relations and money power.

Also check these links: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=722141 http://askville.amazon.com/open-bank-account-abroad/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7004217 and http://www.talkgold.com/forum/r18761-.html

In addition to the other answers, Harris Bank (now owned by BMO) allows Canadians living in Canada to open accounts, perhaps they consider other countries as well.

They have excellent customer service.

I had to open a bank account in the US without having the right paperwork initially (SSN really).

All the bank asked me to do was fill in a W8 form in lieu (instead) of the social security number.

Note that there are two very different issues here.

Opening a bank account is one thing, opening a credit card account is quite another--you're effectively beyond the reach of any enforcement action, why would any bank lend you money?

Question: I'm Swedish, but living in Switzerland at the moment. Can I open a US bank account? Either when in the US on vacation or through the internet/phone?  There are lots of situations when I find myself in need of an american credit card or just a bank account. When ordering things online (most retailers refuse to accept my orders if I try to pay with my Swedish or Swiss credit card, even if I ship it to an US address... ) etc etc.

Can I open a US bank account even if I don't live in the country?

It is possible to open a US account without an SSN. If your local bank operates in the US as well, the might be able to help you.

It is generally agreed, no by no means certain, that you should be able to open a bank account in the USA without being there in person. However, the exact answer will depend on the bank in question.

It is generally agreed that you can open a bank account in the USA without being in the country.

Whether or not you are able to open an account will largely depend on the bank.

There is doubt as to whether or not you can open an account without being physically in the USA.


I think it would have the same effect as paying off a compulsive gambler's debts.

Until Congress and the people who vote for them can exercise some fiscal responsibility sending more money to Washington is pointless.

In fact, I'd argue that if you were a multi-trillionaire and could pay off the whole thing through a donation, we'd be back to deficits within a decade (or less).

At its heart, I think the best spirit of "donation" is helping others less fortunate than yourself.

But as long as the US remains solvent, the chief benefit of paying down the national debt is - like paying off a credit card - lowering the future interest payments the U.S. taxpayer has to make.

Since the wealthy pay a disproportionately large portion of taxes ( per capita ), your hard earned money would be disproportionately benefitting the wealthy.

So I'd recommend

you do one or both of the following:

instead target your donations to a charity whose average beneficiary is less fortunate than yourself take political action with an aim towards balancing the federal budget ( since the US national debt is principally financed in the form of 30 year treasuries, the U.S. will be completely out of debt if it can maintain a balanced budget for 30 years recanted, see below )

The US national debt isn't the problem.

If the Bush-era tax cuts had been allowed to expire then US debt would have been paid off reasonably quickly.

The CBO’s “baseline” budget forecast , which assumes that the cuts do indeed expire as planned, sees the deficit falling from 9.1% of GDP in 2010 to 2.5% in 2014.

These are just the debts the US has already incurred.

The problem is the future entitlements the US is promising to its soon-to-be-retired generation of Baby Boomers.

Medicare, health insurance, and so on are all future costs that can be calculated fairly accurately when considering the size and earnings of the work-force relative to the size, longevity and health of the newly-retired.

Governments can "solve" the problems of entitlements simply be reneging on their promises.

The concern that investors have is that either entitlements will be paid by raising taxes (and so cutting profits and investment returns) or countries will simply default on their existing debts as their tax receipts run out.

As Europe has shown (from French workers rioting about having to retire at 62, to British students rioting about paying their tuition fees), breaking promises has consequences for elected politicians too.

Europe is already going rather painfully through this process of economic restructuring.

The US will eventually come round as well.

Just don't expect it to be painless.

So keep your money and invest it wisely.

No doubt that tax collectors will be round in a while to take their cut so you can make your contribution.

No.

Unless you are ten Bill Gates rolled into one man, you can not possibly hope to make a dent in the 14 trillion debt.

Even if you were and paid off whole debt in one payment, budget deficits would restore it to old glory in a short time.

If you have some extra money, I'd advise to either choose a charity and donate to somebody who needs your help directly or if you are so inclined, support a campaign of a financially conservative politician (only if you are sure he is a financial conservative and doesn't just tell this to get elected - I have no idea how you could do it :).

No, it makes no sense.

The US national debt is different from other debt on TWO KEY WAYS : 1.)

The national debt is not money we owe to our government

IT IS MONEY

WE OWE

TO OURSELVES.2.)

If the GNP of our country can grow at a rate equal to or greater than the national debt interest, then the figure of national debt has no bearing on anything.

So a more philanthropic endeavor would be to help grow the economy.

Question: As an American citizen, does it make any financial sense to donate money in hopes of helping to reduce the US national debt?  Thanks.

Does it make any sense to directly contribute to reducing the US national debt?

No, it does not make any sense to contribute towards reducing the national debt.


If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred .

You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2.

The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket.

The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working.

A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth.

When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money.

Let me give you an example:

For this example we will use the following information for both scenario:

You are in the 25% fed tax bracket

Your mutual fund investment will average 12% a year.

You will invest from age 25 to age 65.

We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800.

The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old Roth IRA $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have

3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year.

IRA $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck.

Invest $400 per month,

at age 65 you have $4,705,909You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket

The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away.

If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket.

Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket

money.stackexchange.com/users/2152/Move More Comments Link To Top

A rollover IRA is a traditional IRA.

Your rollover contributions are not taxed and rollover or counted against your annual limit, which is income dependent.

A Roth IRA is one where your contributions will be taxed going into the IRA.

Note that there are adjusted gross income maximums for contribution to a Roth IRA (see here ), and as far as I can tell those income maximums also determine whether or not you can rollover to a Roth IRA.

Adding to justkt's answer.

The big difference to you during the rollover is that moving the money to a Roth IRA, unless it was a Roth 401K, is going to require you pay a lot of taxes on the money you move.

I'd suggest not doing that without guidance from a financial advisor.

For reporting purposes, most IRA firms prefer that you roll the 401(k) funds into a Rollover or Traditional IRA and then convert to the ROTH from there.

The mid-air conversions (401(k) directly into a ROTH) can get tricky when you go to do your taxes the following year if the 1099 form from the releasing custodian and the 5498 form from the accepting custodian have different numbers due to the conversion amount and taxes withheld if any.

I saw this confusion with Fidelity and called up their customer support.

With Fidelity, Rollover IRA is the same as Traditional IRA.

If you are looking to rolling over into a Traditional IRA and a ROTH IRA, you would need to open the two respective accounts - 1 Rollover/traditional and 1 ROTH.

Question: Previous Question.  I have decided to roll my 401(k) into a Roth IRA.  I use ThinkOrSwim as my broker currently, so I plan on opening an IRA with them.  When opening the account I'm presented with the choice between a Rollover IRA and a Roth IRA.  The description for the Rollover IRA says its for rolling over a retirement account.  My question is: What is the difference between the two?  Can I not just open a Roth IRA and roll the funds into that account?

What is the difference between a Rollover IRA and a Roth IRA?

A rollover is not taxed while for the Roth IRA your contributions will be taxed.

The difference between Rollover and Roth IRA is that Roth contributions are taxed whilst Rollover contributions are not. In order to convert your IRA into a Roth, you would need both types of account to perform the transaction.

Rot contributions will be taxed on the money you move.

To put your funds into a Roth account, you would need both types of account to perform the transaction.


Classic investing guru Benjamin Graham defines "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return."

He contrasts this with speculation which is anything else (no thorough analysis, no safety of principal, or no adequate return).

The word "adequate" is important, since it contrasts adequate returns with those that are either lower than needed or higher than necessary to reach your goals.

Speculation means putting your money on a hunch that some event may occur, depending on current circumstances and some future circumstances.

So either you win huge or lose a lot.

Investment is a conscious decision made on well defined research and grounded on good reasons i.e. economy, industry, company reports etc.

Here is a link on wikipedia with more details on Speculation .

Investing is balancing the desire for return against the various risks that your money is faced with.

There's also a recognition that an investment will be in place for some extended period of time.

Speculation is seeking short-term maximum return, without protecting yourself against risk.

"Speculation" or "Speculators" is often thrown out as a pejorative, but you need speculation to have a healthy market.

In my opinion the difference is semantic.

A professional, or someone wanting to present an air of competence, is more likely to talk about investing in shares, as the word investment carries with it connotations of effort, energy and a worthwhile result.

Whereas, the word speculation implies the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.

I consider speculation to be a security purchase where the point is to sell it to someone for a higher price.

Day-trading is completely speculative.

I consider Investment to be a purchase you make for its underlying value.

You are buying it at that price because you believe the present value of the future payments is higher than the price you are paying.

I may sell an investment if a higher price is offered than I think it's worth, or if the business situation changes, but I don't plan on it.

Hedging is a third type of security purchase, where you are decreasing your overall risk.

If you are a hog farmer, selling hog futures on the CME is hedging, because it locks in the amount you get per hog, regardless of what the price of hogs does.

Commodities markets only have hedgers and speculators.

Investors don't make sense, it doesn't have an underlying value.

Colloquially, there's no difference except for the level of risk (which is an estimate anyway).

Classically, investment is creating wealth through improvement or production.

Purchasing a house with the intent to renovate and sell it for a profit would be an investment, as the house is worth more when you sell than when you bought it.

Speculation, on the other hand, is when you hope to make a profit through changes in the market itself.

Purchasing a house, letting it sit for 6 months, and selling it for a profit would be speculation.

Speculation is when someone else makes an investment you don't like.

The above is tongue in cheek, but is a serious answer.

There are several attempts at separating the two, but they turn into moral judgements on the value of a pure "buy and hold" versus any other investment strategy (which is itself doubtful: is shorting an oil stock more "speculation" than buying and holding an alternative energy stock?).

Some economists take the other route and just argue that we should remove the moral judgement and celebrate speculation as we celebrate investment.

Question: I keep hearing people saying that a speculation is NOT an investment, but isn't it really just investment with high risk?

What is the difference between speculating and investing?

The difference is semantic and there is a different level of risk involved.

It is unclear that there is any definitive difference between the two terms, though some might suggest that the level of risk is a factor.


Looking at previous hyperinflation scenarios, it seems to me the best preparation is to get an option to leave the country.

If you imagine yourself living in say Zimbabwe today then having gold coins would be ok, but having money stashed in South Africa and the legal right to move there would be much better.

So, as well as buying gold coins, store some of them in a country you think will be stable, ideally a place you have the right to live in.

Perhaps buy some growth assets in that country too.

(None of this is to say I think the USA is on track to become anything like a failed state.

But, whatever fraction of a probability you want to assign to the idea of hyperinflation, this is how I think you should play it.)

I purchase one (1) ounce American Eagles or one

(1) ounce Canadian Maple Leafs - both gold and silver.

I've purchased from www.coloradogold.com and www.monex.com.

I would highly recommend www.coloradogold.com.

I would not recommend www.monex.com.

They seemed more interested in signing me up for a leveraged account.

I've read good reviews about www.apmex.com and www.tulving.com.

Also, check your local coin stores.

I've found one locally that is just as competitive with the internet companies.

You should expect to pay around 4-6 % over the spot price (www.kitco.com).

Maybe you shuold look at buying into gold and silver ETFs instead..

they are much more liquid and yuo can go in and oout of your positions very quickly

If you wish to buy actual gold, then www.kitco.com is a reputable site to buy from.

(I'm not a part of kitco.com).

I would note that paying for day to day items with gold is impractical.

Since 1 oz of gold is currently at about $1300, buying some groceries or filling your tank of gas would require only a very small fraction of your 1 oz gold coin.

The seller would very likely not have a kind of precision scale needed to confirm you were paying the appropriate amount of gold,(assuming

they accept gold as payment to begin with).

I have to agree with other answerers that if you believe there will unavoidably be hyper inflation similar to 1920's Germany, then you should move.

Check here: http://www.garynorth.com/public/department32.cfm

If you have specific questions, shell out $15 and become a member of the site.

He actively answers questions himself.

(That's not an affiliate link.)

There's a wealth of reliable information on gold, inflation, etc.

there.

Question: I'm becoming more interested in buying gold / silver coins as a hedge against inflation and especially hyperinflation. I know very little about this, and there are thousands of sites on the internet about this. I'm sure many of them are a little less than honest.  For those of you who are experienced with this, could you point me to reputable sites that can explain how to go about doing this and perhaps reputable sites where gold and silver coins can be purchased?  Thanks very much.

Buying gold / silver as a hedge against hyperinflation

There are several good sites for this like coloradogold.com, monex.com, apmex.com and tulving.com.

If you're interested in buying gold, there are a number of sites you can buy from including coloradogold.com, apmex.com or kitco.com. If you're looking for further information, try the Gary North website.

There are a number of sites where you can buy gold, including Coloradogold.com, Apmex or Kitco.com

The Gary North website contains useful information on buying gold.


Credit cards have two revenue streams:

They collect a fee, usually 2-3% for each transaction from merchants

They collect interest and fees from you.

So yes, the are making money from your daily use of the card.

They don't make any money off of you personally.

They make money off of the merchants per transaction when you use the card.

You trigger this fee to the credit card issuer, but it doesn't come out of your pocket.

(Or it shouldn't; merchants aren't allowed to pass this fee on to you.)

They keep you around because you may at some point become less responsible than you already are, and it would be quite costly to get you back (a couple hundred dollars is the cost of acquiring a new credit card customer).

People who are less responsible than you subsidize your free float and your rewards (if any) but the new CARD act makes it more difficult for people to use their cards irresponsibly, so these perks that you enjoy will get less perky with time.

Of course they make money.

They double dip in a lot of instances they make 2 - 3% plus $0.30 per transaction from the merchant and then whatever interest you pay on your card.

So let's just say in one day you make stops at Starbucks for a $4 Latte, then at Wendy's for lunch for about $8, then you put about $20 worth of gas in your tank, then you stop at Kroger for some $40 groceries and may you pick up some dinner for about $15.

That's 5 transactions at $0.30 which is a $1.50 then at 3% starbucks

is $0.12, Wendy's $0.24, gas is $0.60 then kroger $1.20 then dinner $0.45

so the total that they get is $4.11 multiply this by about a million people per day that is about $4.1 million per day that they get.

That is a nice penny!

just from the merchant

so you are making them a lot of money by just using it.

Maybe they don't make much, but they make some for sure.

In addition to what duffbeer703 says , they also have a warm body at the end of the line and will sell your contact info (or at least access to your eyeballs) to marketers.

They stuff advertisements into your bill for example.

If nothing else, you are brand value for them as they can convince merchants (who get charged monthly) that X billion people carry their card and that merchant would be missing out on sales by not accepting their product.

If you have a rewards card that pays you for using it, the merchant has higher corresponding fees.

Ever wonder why certain businesses won't accept certain credit cards?

(The sign above the register saying "Sorry, we don't accept AmericanExpress").

It's because they don't want to pay that credit card company's transaction fees.

One of the roles of the credit card company is to facilitate the transaction process between the customer (you) and the store.

And now that using credit cards over cash or check is so ingrained in our culture, it creates extra work for the customer to make purchases at an establishment that is cash-only.

Credit card companies know this, and so do businesses.

So businesses will partner with credit card companies so that customers can use their cards.

This way, everything is handled electronically (this can also benefit the business, since there's added security as they're not dealing with cash directly, and they don't have to manually count as much cash later).

However a business may only budget a certain amount of their profits they want taken by credit card transactions.

So if a company's fees are too high (say AmericanExpress, for example) and they are banking on you already having a Visa card, the company isn't going to go out of its way to provide the AmericanExpress option for you.

If it were free for the business to use a credit card company's service at their stores, then they would all just provide the option for every card!

So the credit card company making money is all contingent on you spending your money by using their credit card.

You use the card, and the store pays the company for the transaction.

Question: How does a credit card company make any money off of me using their card if there are no fees associated with the card (I don't pay any extra) and I pay off my balance on time every month (so I don't pay any fees ever for this either).  Are they just banking on the fact that many people don't do this and end up owing them money?

How can a credit card company make any money off me? I have a no-fee card and pay my balance on time

They make money per transaction when you use the card. It's usually 2-3% per transaction.

Generally speaking, the credit card issuer charges merchants for every transaction you make. They only make money off you personally if you incurr interest on the money you have borrowed.

The credit card issuer makes money from the merchant of every transaction you make.

If you do incurr interest, the credit card issuer will collect this from you.

They don't make any money off you personally.


I think a greater problem would be the protection of your property right.

China hasn't shown much respect for the property rights of its own citizens - moving people off subsistence farms in order to build high-rise apartments -

so I'm not certain that a foreigner could expect much protection.

A first consideration in any asset purchase should always be consideration of the strength of local property law.

By all accounts, China fails.

China is in the middle of a residential housing bubble, and now is probably a horrible time to invest in real estate in China.

Even if China wasn't near the peak of its bubble it would probably still be a bad idea because owning real estate in a foreign country is expensive and risky.

There are real currency risks, think what would happen if the yuan declined significantly against the dollar.

There is also the risk of the government seizing foreign held investments (not extremely likely but plausible).

Another consideration is that it would be next to impossible for you to get a loan to purchase a property US banks wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole

and I doubt Chinese banks would be very interested in lending to foreigners.

No, it's not.

This could be a great question, but with no background, not so much.

Do you live there now?

For how long, and how much longer?

You say investment, are you looking to live in it or rent it out?

I have nothing against China, but I'd not buy anywhere unless the price, location, and timing all were right.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

It is a lousy investment to purchase an apartment in China.

Chinese citizens purchase apartments in China because, well... here's how China works:

There's this one-child policy; you may have heard of it.

1 child per couple =

> 4 grandparents for each child to support in old age, which is too much, so don't count on your grandkid supporting you in your old age.

Sounds like you'll need to save a lot of money for retirement.

All the banks give you negative real interest rates (i.e. your savings won't keep up with inflation)

so they can finance their big state-owned enterprises.

Then the rich jerks in charge can overpay themselves.

There are limited opportunities to deal with this, in part due to China's restrictions on its own citizens.

Property ownership is one inflation hedge and starts to look really good in comparison, even if it's risky.

There's some fundamentals driving Chinese property values higher, but mostly it's a bubble caused by those reasons.

More infomation is needed for any meaningful discussion about this.

I just assume you want to buy in China mainland, not Hongkong or other places.

That depends on where you want to buy the flat.

Which city, which district of the city, which community, which school district, how old is the building?

Furthermore, always bearing in mind that you don't own the land when you buy a flat in China mainland.

The land is always state-owned, you are renting the land.

Someone will say that the real property market in China is always in a bubble, but because the ownership of the land is different from countries like US and other things like one-child policy, things are not that easy to tell.

But if you don't live in China now and you don't have clients ready to rent from you, I don't think it is a good choice right now to buy one just for investment.

Question: Is it a good investment for a foreigner to purchase a flat/apartment in China? Why, or why not?

Is it a good investment for a foreigner to purchase a flat/apartment in China?

China is in the middle of a housing bubble so it's not a good time to invest, especially if you don't live there and don't have someone rent to rent it from you. Owning real estate in a foreing country is expensive and risky.

More information is required to provide an exact answer, however, investing in an apartment in China is generally not considered an sensible idea. Firstly, there is a risk that the Chinese government may seize your property, and secondly, the present currency risks make this a very unsafe investment.

Investing in an apartment in China is generally considered a bad decision.

More information is required to give an exact answer to this question.

There is a risk that the government may seize your property.

The current currency risks make this an unwise investment.


First, what country are you in?

Canada doesn't offer a mortgage interest tax deduction, the US does.

This changes the math a bit, and in the US, the current after tax cost of a mortgage is below our long term inflation rate.

Is the mortgage your only debt?

I've seen people religiously pay extra each month to their 6% mortgage while carrying 18% interest debt on credit cards.

Next, there are company matched retirement plans, in the US, a 401(k) plan, where if you put up to 6% or so of your pay into the account, it's effectively doubled upon deposit.

I'd be sure not to miss such an opportunity.

After these considerations, prepaying is equal to buying a risk free fixed instrument.

If that appeals to you, and you've considered the above first, go for it.

Keep in mind, money paid to the mortgage isn't easily borrowed back, short of a HELOC.

I'd strongly advise that your emergency fund be fully funded (6 months worth of spending) before starting to make extra mortgage payments.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

I'm assuming when you say "…put it towards our mortgage payment?

" , you mean make additional payments on top of your scheduled payment.

Strictly speaking, if the interest on your mortgage is higher than the return you can expect by saving, then yes, your excess savings should be put toward your mortgage.

This assumes that there are no pre-payment penalties, that you really won't miss that money in the short term (i.e. you say you have enough savings for emergencies, so that's good), and that both choices would use after-tax dollars (i.e. mortgage payment vs RRSP contribution in Canada is a huge discussion).

Do you have any other debt besides your mortgage such as credit card debt, student loans, or a car payment?

Unless those are lower interest than your mortgage, pay them off first.

There are a lot of other considerations besides just mortgage and emergency fund.

Do you have some money for the things in life that happen - car repairs, unexpected medical bills, your next vehicle purchase, and the eventual replacing of those big ticket items in your home that will break eventually?

A bit of savings towards each of those each month is not a bad idea.

Then there is your retirement.

Are you on track to make enough to support yourself in retirement plus pay for the cost of health care as it applies in your country (more in some countries, less in others)?

There is also the cost of higher education for your children if you have any or are planning on having any.

If so, were you planning on contributing to their higher eduction?

Do you have a savings plan in place for that?

Paying off the house is a great thing to do - in my mind it's great even if it reduces your mortgage deduction, although others disagree.

It's just not the number one financial priority anyone should have.

First of all, you should absolutely put money into savings until you have at least a 6 month cushion, and preferably longer.

It doesn't matter if you get 0% interest in your savings and have a high interest rate mortgage, the cushion is still more important.

Once you have a nice emergency fund, you can then consider the question of whether to pay more towards the mortgage if the numbers make sense.

However, in my opinion, it's not just a straight comparison of interest rates.

In other words, if your savings account gives you 1% and your mortgage is 5%, that's still not an automatic win for the mortgage.

The reason is that by putting the money into your mortgage, you're locking it up and can't access it.

To me, money in the hand is worth a lot more than money that's yours on paper but not easily accessible.

I don't know the math well enough, but you don't really need the math.

Just keep in mind that you have to weight the present value of putting that money into savings vs the future value of putting it into your mortgage and paying less interest at some point in the future.

Do the math and see how much you will save by paying the mortgage down faster, but also keep in mind that future money is worth less than present money.

A LOT less if you suddenly have an emergency or decide on a major purchase and need the money, but then have to jump through hoops to get to it.

To me, you need to save a considerable amount by paying down the mortgage, and also understand that your money is getting locked away, for it to make sense.

Another thing to consider is how much longer you wish to stay in this home & what you will do with it when you move.

I had planned on doing exactly this, but we are more likely to keep our home when we move out and use it as rental property.

If we went down this route, we would have a lot of equity (perhaps even paid off) in our home, but would have little left to save towards the next home down payment.

The other answers have offered some great advice, but here is an alternative that hasn't been mentioned yet.

I'm assuming that you have an adequately-sized emergency fund in savings, and that your cars are your only non-mortgage debt.

Since you still have car debt, you probably don't have anything saved for buying a new car when your current cars are at the end-of-life.

Consider paying off your car loans early, then begin saving for your next car.

Having cash in the bank for a car is very freeing, and it changes your mindset when it comes time to purchase a car, as it is easy to waste a lot of money on something that depreciates rapidly when you aren't paying for it immediately.

This approach might be counterintuitive if your car loan interest rate is less than your mortgage rate, but you will probably need another car before you need another house, and paying cash for a car is worth doing.

money.stackexchange.com/users/10997/Ben Miller - Remember Monica

Question: Should we take our excess cash at the end of the month and put it in savings or put it towards our mortgage payment? We've been in our home 3 years and we already have some emergency money saved up.  I would be paying towards the principal of my mortgage. My mortgage interest rate 5.75 is the higher than our other debt (cars). My saving account interest rate is about 1%-2%.

Put money in savings or pay towards mortgage?

You should absolutely have money in savings for an emergency fund.  However, if the interest on your mortgage is higher than the return on savings, then invest in that instead.

There will be a number of factors to take into consideration besides the interest rates and even then the answer will be subjective. Some people would recommend making mortgage payments if the mortgage interest is higher than the interest on your savings. However, some people would recommend having a signficiant cushion of savings before going down this route.

If the interest on your mortgage is higher than the interest on your savings, you should pay off the mortgage.

There will be other things to consider besides the interest rates.

Some people would recommend building up a significant cushion in your savings before making additional mortgage payments.


You're entirely correct.

It's one of those "broken window" fallacies.

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass?

If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation -

"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good.

Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Frederic Bastiat's 1850 essay, "That which is seen and that which is not seen" is still the best and most beautifully-written of such explanations.

As you point out, a gain for the construction companies is more than offset by the loss of life and financial expenditure of the insurance companies.

Plus, it is never possible to quantify the entirety of the loss in terms of opportunities foregone ("that which is not seen").

People who were about to do incredible things but now gone.

Property, of any nature, no longer of use to build on or perform service.

Any replacement comes at the expense of other opportunities.

You are not wrong.

This is called the "Broken Window" fallacy in economics.

Imagine if 20% of a population was employed to go around breaking windows.

This would stimulate the economy as many people would have to be employed to make new windows, repair the broken windows, etc..

The problem is that everyone would have been better off if they didn't have to spend their valuable resources on repairing a perfectly functioning window.

Although many people will be employed to rebuild Japan, this doesn't improve the standard of living for the folks in Japan.

It will have some positives, and some negatives.

The hardest hit will be the insurance agencies, as well as banks.

Manufacturing will also take a short term hit.

When insurance payments come out, then there will be a boom in construction, consumer goods, industrial goods, etc.

Companies will upgrade their equipment whereas before they might have let it run for another 10-20 years or longer.

After all, if you are going to buy something, you aren't going to get it used, you'll get something more modern.

Of course, Japan already was one of the most modern countries in the world, so they likely won't see as many gains as other countries, but this would hold more true in a less technologically advanced society.

Long term, 10-20 years down the line, when everything is rebuilt, it might have a slight positive increase in productivity, but this will be somewhat offset because Japan already is such a technological powerhouse, and on the cutting edge in many technologies.

But I agree, it's quite foolish to say that it'll improve the economy of Japan, some clarification should be done to clear that one up...

The problem here is that the metrics that are used to track the economy are looking for things like growth and change .

In a perfect world, everyone would have exactly what they need and there would no need for economists because the economy would be static.

The people who benefit are large engineering and construction companies, manufacturers of construction equipment, bankers and lawyers.

So in the world of realpolitik that we live in, the misery of millions of "other people" is spun as a net benefit, because "we" benefit from that misery.

It certainly creates an opportunity for the re-distribution of wealth.

Money will be transferred from insurance companies to construction companies.

Businesses that go under will be replaced by ones that survived.

Some companies will make a profit out of this, but as you have already figured out, no new wealth is created by the disaster.

(Although lots has been destroyed, so we are looking at a net loss.)

Wikipedia's article on the Parable of the broken window mentions that Keynesians would argue that broken windows can be useful in depressed economies.

I think Japan's economy was somewhat depressed, so if it applies anywhere, it'd apply in this scenario.

Question: After the Sendai earthquake, news sites say that rebuilding the city will be an "economic boost" for Japan. Okay, great for construction companies, but the government and insurance companies are paying for that. I don't think this is something that boosts the economy of Japan, unless it is paid 100% by foreign insurance companies.   Am I wrong in my thinking?

How can rebuilding a city/large area be considered an economic boost?

Some companies will profit but no new wealth will be created.

You are not wrong in your thinking as there will be both positives and negatives. The contruction industry will experience a boom but at the expense of the insurance industry.

There will be some positives and negatives.

There will be a boom in the construction industry, but this will come at a cost to the insurance industry.


I used to open safes and vaults for a large US bank and have a fair bit of professional experience breaking into safes/vaults (legally).

I would avoid safe deposit boxes many banks keep poor records and I have seen way to many safe deposit boxes that were drilled and opened accidentally (wrong box number written on entry card happened fairly often).

Things to look for in a safe for gold and silver.

Thick door and side walls the thicker the better.

Door must have a bar or bars that when the door is shut the bars interlock with the walls to prevent prying.

Many cheap safes Must be bolted to the floor (preferably concrete)

it doesn't matter how good a safe is if the thief can carry it away.

The heaver the safe + valuables are the better.

Mechanical locks are better than electronic locks in general many consumer and some commercial grade safes have a master combination.

Relockers are important for security just keep in mind they can be a double edged sword if you loose your combination.

(relockers are mechanical devices that re-lock a safe if it is being tampered with)

The other consideration I would have is that it is important that you hide the location of the safe as best as possible.

If a thief can't find it they can't steal it.

Also if you are planning on storing documents or other things that could burn it would be a good idea to get a fire rated safe.

I don't think there is anything that will 100% protect your stuff from getting stolen but with a decent safe and some reasonable precautions you can thwart all but the most ambitious and skilled criminals.

Wherever you end up storing it just make sure you don't tell anyone.

You can't know how little secrets can slowly spread, especially over many years.

You don't want someone vaguely connected to

you try to rob you when they're really desperate.

Hide it in plain sight.

A thief would look in obvious places (like a safe or the refrigerator) first.

Use your imagination, and don't tell anyone except maybe your spouse, or in your will.

Something like unscrewing the bottom of a vegetable juicer you don't use, putting a bag of silver in there, and screwing the bottom back on.

More elaborate would be opening up a wall panel, putting some in there, and then repairing the panel so that it looked untouched.

(Please don't break into my house to take my juicer.

There's nothing there.)

I'd go for a safe that's been properly installed.

The safest place would be inside of a safe deposit box.

You should consult with your insurance agent about insuring the bullion.

You need insurance whether you keep bullion in a box or at home.

Insurance companies may have specific storage requirements in order to store bullion over a certain amount.

If you are concealing the existence of the bullion for tax or some other purpose you have no legal recourse.

A safe from a reputable manufacturer is a definite necessity.

Also, take a good insurance policy to protect against any theft if it ever happens.

It is also a good idea (depending on the additional expense required) to save the bullion in more than one safes.

That way you can spread out the risk.

You can store it in a house, but I wouldn't feel that's safe enough.

A safe deposit box in multiple banks(possibly multiple locations) is your best bet for storing gold bullion.

What about allocated (or even unallocated) storage in a vault - I know very little about it myself except but you own numbered bars (or rights to a percentage in the case of unallocated) in a vault.

Worth mentioning anyway

I think.

Here's the first link I found it may help

I got a small used TL-30 rated safe from a store that was closing for pretty cheap.

There's several online stores that sell used safes and you might have some local locksmith/security shops that do as well.

I think as long as you bolt it down and don't plan to store millions in it

that's a good way to go.

Question: Apart from midnight-gardening, what are some of the truly safe and cost-effective storage methods for gold and silver bullion?  This is for core bullion with no numismatic value. I am looking specifically for bullion storage so any suggestions regarding e-Gold/Gold funds can be avoided.

Storing gold and silver

Look into a safe from a reputable manufacturer. A safe deposit box at a bank is also a good option.

Your best choices will probably be either a properly installed safe, a safe deposit box or allocated space in a vault. You may want to consult with your insurance company as they might have requirements for gold storage. Another thing to consider could be storing the gold in multiple locations to spread the risk.

A properly installed or certified safe is probably your best option.

A safe deposit box or allocated space in a vault could be a good choice.

You may want to consult with your insurance company as they may have requirements for storing gold.

You might want to consider storing your gold in multiple locations to spread the risk.


The answer is, unfortunately, along the lines of "it depends".

It does depend a little on the bank - I've had a US bank account for years before moving to the US, and I didn't have an SSN or any status when I opened the account.

What I did have however was an address in the US that they could send the statements to, and proof that I was living abroad (oh, and US citizen wife that had an account with the same bank).

Not all banks will open a bank account for a foreigner with no status in the US, but it is generally possible.

You will have to check with several banks and basically have paperwork showing your foreign address and proof of id (passport, possibly a drivers license as well).

You can open an account in US without having SSN.

You need to be physically present to open the account.

This is an alternative solution and it will depend where you live as to how you will have to make it work.

I am in the UK and there are a number of ways that I can use to access my money from anywhere in the world without high transaction fees.

Use a Halifax Clarity credit card.

This has no foreign exchange fee anywhere in the world, so you can get the best rate possible.

Plus it doesn't charge a fee for cash withdrawals, although you will be charged interest on the cash withdrawal from the date of withdrawal even if you repay in full.

Use a FairFX prepaid Mastercard.

This has no fee for topping up (if you use the correct route) or for purchases.

There is a $2 fee (or €1.50 on the Euro version) for each ATM cash withdrawal.

I top mine up from my bank account over the internet without any charges.

Internet banking takes care of everything else.

Depending what country you are from, there may be better alternatives to transfer money internationally.

Opening a bank account is complicated, costs money, and international bank transfers are remarkably expensive.

Traveler checks: they can be used for moving money international at a about 1% fee rate.

They are somewhat inconvenient but very safe and cost effective.

ATM cards:

I'm currently in China

and I can pull money from the Chinese Construction Bank machine using a Bank of America ATM card with no charges whatsoever, since both Banks have an ATM agreement.

Yes you can.

I'm a foreigner who uses a tourist visa to enter America and Bank of America

opened a checking account for me.

I had to go into the branch with my passport and a driving license

and it was opened with $100.

You do need to give a US address

so statements can be sent out

but that's about it.

yes you can open bank account

you should have a address in us and personally visit bank to deposite $1500 only to get you a debit card.you are required to maintain min balance of $1500 only.

I have done it

If you want an interest-bearing account, you can apply online for a Taxpayer Identification Number.

Unlike a Social Security Number, this should be available without respect to visa status.

Remember, many people living overseas are invested in American securities.

Speaking of which, you may find something like a Schwab International account fits your needs, without even needing a US address.

Leave the money in cash; ignore investing in the US markets (unless you want to).

Question: I am not a US citizen and want to visit USA as a tourist.   Since withdrawing money from my home-country bank account will cost much, it is better to open an new bank account in US (after arriving) and  transfer some money from my home-country bank account to it.  The money is not too  much, less than 50 thousand us dollars.  Can foreigners holding US tourist visa create a bank account in USA?

Can foreigners holding US tourist visa create a bank account in USA?

It depends on the bank. You will probably have to visit several banks, but you should be able to open an account without an SSN.

It is generally believed that yes, you can open a bank account in the US as a foreigner, but the exact answer will largely depend on the bank and your personal circumstances.

The exact answer will depend on the bank and your personal situation.

It is generally believed that yes, you can open a US bank account as a foreigner.


Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.)

which are highly correlated with the index.

The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details.

Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content.

Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index.

Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists.

Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs.

Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile.

Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like "I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share.

With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.

Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly?

This isn't really practical.

Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500

Those two indices represent 2500 stocks.

A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks.

Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments.

Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.

Index funds are good for diversifying risk.

For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs.

For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually.

Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.

Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things.

Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.)

One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload.

Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use.

That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market.

A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly "active."

The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index.

Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.

when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like "all-world-ex-US", or VT "Total World Stock", or "All Japan".

(And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.)

So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy)

it is often at a pretty small value.

Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match.

More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage.

However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this.

You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index.

The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index.

So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition.

If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.

Question: Does an index fund comprise of stocks that mimic the index? So when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts? But how can this be, since index funds are not actively managed?  And if the index fund just mimics the index, why bother investing in the fund? Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly?

Is there any benefit to investing in an index fund?

One of the reasons for using an index fund is to reduce your workload. The costs are pooled and investors can buy smaller amounts. They are also good for diversifying risk.

The main benefit of index funds is that they have lower associated costs and are easier to manage. They also diversify risk. The funds adjust because they are managed, albeit not actively, and it would be possible to invest in participating securities individually, but this would be considered quite tedious.

Investing in an index fund generally involves less cost and is easier to manage.

A benefit of index funds is that they diversify risk.

Index funds are managed, just not in the same way as other funds.

You could calculate the percentage composition of the index and invest in individual participants but this would be very tedious.


The problem with commodities is that they don't produce income.

With a stock or bond, even if you never sold it to anyone or it wasn't publicly traded, you know you can collect the money the company makes or collect interest.

That's a quantifiable income from the security.

By computing the present value of that income (cf. http://blog.ometer.com/2007/08/26/money-math/ ) you can have at least a rough sense of the value of the stock or bond investment.

Commodities, on the other hand, eat income (insurance and storage).

Their value comes from their practical uses e.g. in manufacturing (which eventually results in income for someone); and from psychological factors.

The psychological factors are inherently unpredictable.

Demand due to practical uses should keep up with inflation, since in principle the prices on whatever products you make from the commodity would keep up with inflation.

But even here there's a danger, because it may be that over time some popular uses for a given commodity become obsolete.

For example this commodity used to be a bigger deal than now, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense .

The reverse is also possible, that new uses for a commodity drive up demand and prices.

To the extent that metals such as silver and gold bounce around wildly (much more so than inflation), I find it hard to believe the bouncing is mostly due to changes in uses of the metals.

It seems far more likely that it's due to psychological factors and momentum traders.

To me this makes metals a speculative investment, and identifying a bubble in metals is even harder than identifying one in income-producing assets that can more easily be valued.

To identify a bubble you have to figure out what will go on in the minds of a horde of other people, and when.

It seems safest for individual investors to just assume commodities are always in a bubble and stay away.

The one arguable reason to own commodities is to treat them as a random bouncing number, which may enhance returns (as long as you rebalance) even if on average commodities don't make money over inflation.

This is what people are saying when they suggest owning a small slice of commodities as part of an asset allocation.

If you do this you have to be careful not to expect to make money on the commodities themselves, i.e. they are just something to sell some of (rebalance out of) whenever they've happened to go up a lot.

How I recognize a silver bubble: It seems like everyone is talking about their latest silver investment.

This is similar to tech stocks in the '90s and real estate in the '00s.

Your plumber is talking about how he is making a fortune in silver.

Your brother-in-law is talking abouthow is making a fortune in silver.

New investment products are beingannounced almost daily offering differentways to invest in silver - indexes,etf's, mining companies,securitization products, etc.

Many investors talk about how youcan't go wrong with silver.

It's a"no-brainer".

I don't think silver is in a bubble.

You

state:

What goes up, must come down

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Yes, prices fluctuate.

But most prices generally go up over time due to inflation - somethings more than others.

Was coffee in a bubble in early 2005?

If you thought so then you would have missed this: Was gold in a bubble in Argentina in 2001?

If you thought so then you would have missed this (sorry for the mismatching chart scales): Was gold in a bubble in Weimar in 1922?

If you thought so then you would have missed this: Maybe US farmland is in a bubble since prices are rising rather dramatically.

I don't think it is in a bubble since I rarely hear anyone talking about investing in farmland:

@fennec is right, no one knows.

Here's a link that may help: http://pragcap.com/silver-prices-display-some-bubbly-characteristics

I don't follow markets enough to comment, but I have read enough of Cullen's stuff to know he's not off his rocker.

If markets were perfectly efficient, the price should reflect everything that is currently known about the future of a commodity.

If it is known that silver is currently under-valued, then investors would be buying it -- driving the price up.

Conversely, if silver is currently over-valued, then investors would be selling and the price would be going down.

Added to that is emotion.

If the price is currently trending up, then people expect it to keep going up, and the price continues to rise.

Until enough people think it can't go any higher and start selling, which drives the price down.

Since this is driven by emotion, it cannot be predicted when this will happen.

In my opinion, you're in a precious metals "bubble" when rising prices are driven by the people's desire

the own the commodity without a reason other than "the market is going up".

Usually "bubble" markets are fueled by lots of debt.

IMO, this isn't a bubble.

I don't think that silver and gold values are shooting up like a rocket due to some orgy of speculation.

In my opinion, citizens are losing faith in the government and in the value of money itself.

If you have money to save, most banks pay less than 1%.

The government claims that inflation is nonexistant -- the inflation rate on a US Series

I

Savings Bond was 0.37% in November 2010.

Yet most people are noticing escalations in price in things that dominate their budget -- fuel, healthcare, local taxes and food.

I bought a pound of store-brand butter for $3.99 yesterday...

that was $0.99 4-5 years ago.

People are seeing precious metals as a way to hedge against that.

They're rational about it -- trying to protect assets is different than speculation.

I think the question to ask is: "Is the US Dollar's value a bubble?"

Question: What signs are there of a bubble in silver (or other precious metal)?  I was planning on buying some small quantity of silver soon, but I noticed the price has doubled recently and thought "what goes up, must come down".  How can I tell whether the new price is a trend, or whether it's a bubble soon to burst?

What would be the signs of a bubble in silver?

Many investors talk about how you can't go wrong with silver. However, if it seems that everyone is talking about silver, then it's probably a bubble.

Signs of a bubble are generally considered to be the constant mention of the phenomenon by investors and normal people alike.


If crossing out an endorsement of "For Deposit Only" were valid, then there would be no point in writing "For Deposit Only" on a check.

The direction only works because there is no way to 'undo' the change.

You are essentially saying, I don't care what happens, this check can ONLY be deposited and not cashed.

This is to protect you in case the check gets lost or stolen.

If initials validated changing this directive, the protection the endorsement gives would no longer work.

The store made the correct choice.

Personally, I would want the grocery store to respond that way.

The practice of writing "For Deposit Only" is a means to prevent someone from cashing your check subsequent to you signing the check.

The implication being that it would be an unauthorized individual.

Initials are much easier to fake/forge than a signature.

So crossing out the phrase "For Deposit Only" and initialing is a means of subverting the intent of the intended payee.

In other words, someone could pick up your check off the street and use this method to cash it.

With that said, one would think the grocery store would be more willing to cash it if your wife presented ID.

Nevertheless I would say once the phrase is written it might as well be written in stone.

Does anyone know some sort of statute regarding this?

The fact - check signing is often overlooked at banks.

My local bank asks me for ID when I cash a check.

They cash my check for my wife with no ID.

(Maybe I look untrustworthy?)

Stories of people signing their check "mickey mouse" and having it go through are common.

But - this isn't really about banks or rules.

The grocer accepts 3rd party checks at their discretion.

They don't have to accept checks at all.

So it's up to the store how they'd handle a situation as you described.

They did nothing wrong, except perhaps annoy a good customer.

To avoid confusion in the future, write checks payable directly to the store and all will be well.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

See the related discussion on the question How to correct a mistake made when writing a check?

Its advisable that you will have to write a new check.

According to the National Check Fraud Center: Section 3-206:

If the back of the check says it is For deposit only, then has the signature of the payee, that is a restrictive indorsement and it should be observed, but the person who affixed that indorsement can waive it.

If Webster takes a check payable to him and indorses it "For deposit only, Webster", when he comes to the bank he can change his mind and get cash instead.

On the other hand, if Webster indorses the check "For deposit only, Webster" and gives it to Ryan to take to the bank, Ryan does not have the authority to waive the indorsement.

Source of quote

Question: My wife endorsed a small check "For Deposit Only". Then, she crossed the endorsement out, and initialed it. The grocery store refused the check, saying once it's endorsed for deposit only, the bank won't accept it even though For Deposit Only is canceled. Is this right?

Can a "For Deposit Only" endorsement on a check be changed (canceled) by initialing?

This is a restrictive endorsement and should be observed. You can't cancel it by crossing it out.

No, a check endorsement cannot be cancelled by initialling and the store made the correct decision in this case.

No, an endorsement for a check cannot be cancelled by initialling.

The store made the correct decision in this case.


CashBase has a web app, an iPhone app and an Android app, all sync'ed up.

It doesn't integrate with banks automatically, but you can import bank statements as CSV.

Disclosure: Filip is CashBase's founder.

neobudget.com is a website that does exactly what you are describing.

It is set up for electronically using the envelope system of budgeting.

Disclosure: neobudget was founded by a former coworker of mine.

MoneyStrands is a site very similar to Mint, but does not force you to link bank accounts.

You can create manual accounts and use all features of the site without linking to banks.

SavingsMap is a web-based personal finance forecasting tool that requires no bank account or personal information other than an email address.

As founder of SavingsMap, our goal is to forecast future cash flows based on your current budget, while using strategies to minimize US tax obligations and taking into account expected major life events.

I don't think Xero Personal does.

I have my bank account in there, but since there's no automatic feed for the bank I use

I imported it manually.

I entered the bank by hand, so I think you could use it without listing a bank account at all.

PocketSmith is another tool you might like to consider.

No personal banking details are required, but you can upload your transactions in a variety of formats.

Pocketsmith is interesting because it really focus on your future cash flow, and the main feature of the interface is around having a calendar(s) where you easily enter one off or repetitive expenses/income. http://www.pocketsmith.com/

Out Of The Dark OOTD is a budgeting and personal money management web app that does not require you to give out access to your bank accounts or even your personal identity.

It's a great tool for people with no financial experience with features like Cash Put-Aside and the Credit Card Debt Terminator and it has tons of instant guides explaining how to use every feature.

You can check it out at myootd.org.

Question: I realize that similar questions have been raised, especially regarding Mint and Quicken Online, but my question is this:  Is there web-based personal finance software that does not require you to register an online bank account within the software?  I really want the ability to do personal finance online, without having to reveal any personal or bank information at all to the service. I'm pretty sure Quicken and Mint require an online institution "so they can make things convenient for you," but I don't trust  anybody  that much.

Is there any online personal finance software without online banking?

There are several apps like this: CashBase, neobudget, Moneystrands and Savingsmap that don't require you to link bank accounts.

There are a wide range of financial programmes that don't require online banking, such as CashBase, neobudget, MoneyStrands or PocketSmith.


While a lot of trading is executed by computers, a substantial amount is still done at the behest of humans.

Brokers managing accounts, Portfolio Managers, and Managers of Mutual Funds doing stock picks etc.

Those folks are still initiating a very large number of the trades (or at least one side of a trade).

And those humans don't work 7 days a week.

it's not just computers talking to computers at the behest of other computers.

And even a lot of places that use computers to create models and such, there are still humans in the loop to ensure that the computers are not ordering something stupid to be done.

I personally worked for a firm that managed nearly $20Billion in stock portfolios.

The portfolios were designed to track indexes, or a mix of indexes and actively managed funds, but with the addition of managing for tax efficiency.

A lot of complex math and complicated 'solver' programs that figured out each day what if anything to trade in each portfolio.

Despite all those computers, humans still reviewed all the trades to be sure they made sense.

And those humans only worked 5 days a week.

money.stackexchange.com/users/3924/Chuck van der Linden

"After-hours trading" and alternate venues allow one to trade outside of regular market hours.

However there are a few reasons why you would not want to: The purpose of an exchange is to improve liquidity by gathering all buyers and sellers in the same place at the same time.

If trading was 24/7, not all market participants would be trading at the same time.

Some markets (including NASDAQ) depend on market makers or specialists to help liquidity.

These exchanges are able to mandate that the market maker actively make a market in a security during a meaningful percentage of the trading day.

Requiring 24/7 active market making may not be reasonable.

Trading systems, meaning both exchange infrastructure and market participant infrastructure, need maintenance time.

It's nice to have the evenings and weekends for scheduled work. Post-trade clearing and settlement procedures are still somewhat manual at times.

You need staff around to handle these processes.

The answer is 7-fold: Prior to 1928, the stock market was open on Saturdays, but not Sundays ...

the Sunday closings were out of religious respect, and the fact that in those days most Americans lived on farms, and had to give their horses a day of rest or they would die ...

so everybody took Sundays off.

During 1928 & 1929, as the stock market was in its "bubble phase", many Saturdays were taken off to allow exchange staff to catch up on their paperwork.

For months after the stock market crash of late 1929, Saturdays were taken off to allow exchange staff to catch up on their paperwork ...

this time led by selling pressures.

In the early 1930's, Saturdays began to be given off more often due to light trading volume, another result of the Crash and Great Depression.

From the 4th of July 1945 through Labor Day Sep 1945, the stock market was closed all Saturdays ... since Victory in Europe was May 8th, 1945, and Victory in Japan was Aug 14, 1945, this probably also had the celebratory impact of wanting to close that summer starting with Independence Day.

Then, for many summers after that into the 1950's, the stock market was closed all Saturdays from Memorial Day through Labor Day ...

This begins to blend in the concept of, in general, society just wanting a shorter work week.

In the 1950's, the stock market began closing every Saturday ... continuing this societal desire.

BOTTOM LINES : Bubble; bursting bubble; Great Depression; Victory in WWII; All work and no play makes Jack (& Jill) very dull persons.

The stock markets are closed on week-ends and public holidays because the Banks are closed.

The Banking is a must to settle the payment obligations.

So you may buy and sell as much as you wish, but unless money changes hands, nothing has really happened.

Now as to why Banking itself is closed on week-ends and public holidays, well a different question :) Keeping the system 24 hrs up and running does not actually push volumes, but definately push expenses for brokers, Banks etc.

There definately is some convinience to buyers and sellers.

There are a number of factors here.

It's important that there is human oversight on the system.

At one level someone needs to be monitoring the computers that manage the trading to be sure they are functioning.

At another level someone needs to be making judgement calls on important but rare events: when you you suspend trading in a stock?

When do you close the stock exchange entirely?

It is alleged that unsupervised computer trades were at least partly responsible for the May 2010 selloff.

Even if that's unproven, would you really want those unsupervised computers trading with each other for a couple of days?

Or even for a couple of hours?

Providing 24/7 trading would increase the cost of running a stock exchange, but with only a tiny improvement in liquidity.

If the stock exchange ran 24/7 then traders would have to run 24/7.

That would add hugely to the cost of trading.

The people who would really suffer would be day traders - because there would no longer be such a thing as a day trader.

If you were a sole trader then you would need to monitor your investments 24/7, or risk waking up in the morning to find one of your stocks had plummeted overnight.

Simply, most of the above given 'answers' are mere 'justifications' for a practice that has become anachronistic.

It did make sense once in the past, but not any more.

Computers and networks can run non-stop 24/7; even though the same human beings cannot be expected to work 24/7, we have invented the beautiful concept of multiple shifts; banks may be closed during nights and weekends, but banking is never closed in the internet era; ...The answer must lie in the vested interests of a few stakeholder groups - or - it could just be our difficult to change habits.

Question: It's all digital and done with computers these days, so why bother? Doesn't that just make the system less liquid, which is the opposite to one aim of having the stock market?  Plus can't you just play the futures market after hours anyway?

Why is the stock market closed on the weekend?

A lot of the work is still done by humans. They have an oversight role. The banks are closed on weekends so it makes no sense for the stock market to stay open.

It is generally considered that the stock market is closed at the weekend because some human oversight is required, even if it is minimal. However, some people would consider that this is simply an old-fashioned habit and not justified. Additionally, the stock markets may simply be closed at the weekend because the banks are too. Despite all this, it is still possible to trade after-hours.

The stock market is closed at weekends because at least some human oversight is required despite the extent to which the market is controlled by computers.

Some people would argue that this is simply an old-fashioned habit that is proving difficult to shake.

It is possible that the stock markets are closed at the weekend because banks are closed at the weekends.


When you operate outside of the law, you bear the risks of that decision.

When you operate within the law, you have a number of avenues, such as the courts and police to mediate disputes or other problems.

If you get counterfeit money, then you're dealing with the criminal who is going to be punished by the law for doing that.

The portion of the total sum that was paid with the counterfeit currency is considered unpaid and you can claim the money from the criminal and sue him, while he's in jail.

He'll work hard on those license plates to pay you off.

However, making false statements and assisting in a tax evasion scheme compromises your ability to go to the law enforcement in case of any wrongdoing, and then you should worry about the counterfeit money, because the law won't be on your side to help you.

And you don't even get anything out of it...

Why on earth are you willing to take this risk?

Just so you know, it may also be money laundering, which may get you in trouble even more with the law.

I'd not do business under these terms.

A bill of sale needs a signature, right?

Your signature is your word, and your word is your bond.

I wouldn't participate in such a fraud, nor would I accept this sum of cash, who knows its origins?

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

I'd worry more about falsifying documents of sale.

No good reason at all to do that.

Detecting counterfeit bills is easy if they're all new bills.

Hold them up to the light and look for the watermark and the numbered tape in the bill.

Refuse any bad ones.

I'd be a bit concerned about someone who wanted to transact that large of a transaction in cash.

Also consider what you are going to do with the funds, if you deposit it, you will need to tell the bank where it comes from.

Why does the bank want to know, because most legal businesses don't transact business with large sums of currency..

What does that tell you about the likelihood the person you are about to do business with is a criminal or involved in criminal affairs?

The lower bill of sale price might be more than just to dodge taxes, it could be part of money laundering..

If they can turn right around and 'sell' the boat for $10K, or trade it in on a bigger boat for the same amount, and have a bill than says $4K, then they have just come up with a legal explanation for how they made 6 grand.

and you could potentially be considered an accomplice if someone is checking up on their finances.

Really, is it worth the risk.

money.stackexchange.com/users/3924/Chuck van der Linden

Paying tax is a Good Thing.

However, warren has made good point

and I would like you to consider this other thing: Go into your payees bank with the payee, get the money withdrawn from the teller and take it with you.

Unless I am missing something, or the teller handed your payee fake notes, you are "safe"

The only issue I can see is that the stranger is looking to undervalue their purchase to save money on taxes/registration (if applicable in your state).

Buying items with cash such as cars, boats, etc in the used market isn't all that uncommon * - I've done it several times (though not at the 10k mark, more along about half of that).

As to the counterfeit issue, there are a couple avenues you can pursue to verify the money is real:

marker pens (used by stores a lot of time even on 20s) UV scanning not signing the title over until the money has been deposited at your bank alternatively, putting the title in escrow for the time it takes to make the deposit

/ have the bank verify the funds

this could be as simple as doing the purchase in the bank parking lot, walk inside, make deposit, sign title to buyer

it's the preferred means of payment advocated by some prominent personal financial folks, including Dave Ramsey

I would not do a bill of sale for less, but a legal and safe way to reduce the taxes is to write separate bills for the boat, motor and trailer.

The taxes are paid at different rates and will represent to full sale price.

Question: I'm selling a boat through a broker (a friend of a friend) taking a consignment.  The buyers offered to pay in cash, but want the bill of sale to say less than the actual price for tax reasons.  Should I worry about counterfeiting if it is such a large amount? Or should I worry more?

If accepting more than $10K in cash for a used boat, should I worry about counterfeiting?

You should be aware you would be falsifying the documents which could get you into trouble. In addition to that, it could be money laundering and you would need to be able to prove to your bank where all this cash has come from.

The lower bill of sale may be due to money laundering, which will get you into trouble for falsifying documents of sale. When you deposit the money, you will also need to tell the bank where it has come from. There is also the risk that the money may be counterfeit. You can detect counterfeit bills by holding them up to the light and looking for the watermark and number or mark them with pens.

If you receive counterfeit money, you are probably dealing with a criminal and I would also worry about falsifying documents of sale.

The lower bill of sale may be money laundering, which will get you into trouble.

You can detect counterfeit bills by holding them up to the light and looking for the watermark and number tape. You can also use marker pens.

Also consider what you are going to do with the funds, if you deposit it, you will need to tell the bank where it comes from.


The volatility of a commodity typically depends on how volatile is demand and how flexible is supply.

In the case of oil, it is more volatile than in the past because most of the spare capacity from OPEC has been taken out of the system.

Commodities whose demand responds similarly to economic shocks but with much greater excess supply, such as natural gas in the United States, are considerably less volatile, although a few years ago when supplies of nat gas were tight in the US, volatility of nat gas was greater than volatility of oil.

Any number of reasons.

Technically, large positions being bought/sold in the market can trigger others to follow.

Fundamentally, disruptions in supply can trigger uncertainty or volatility in the markets, especially with oil.

A good chunk of the world's oil is in places that doesn't have the best track record for peace and prosperity, shall we say?

But even under the best of times, a hurricane can take out refining capacity and the price can spike up.

As for other commodities, there are other things

can can disrupt supply: crop failure, flooding, mines collapsing, the works.

Prices are driven by the demand for a commodity and the availability of that commodity.

For some commodities, projecting demand is easy or irrelevant.

Take gravel as an example...

if I order 50 tons of gravel, I find a supplier who send me whatever is in his warehouse and if this is insufficient, he digs it out of a quarry and puts it on a truck.

No big deal -- the cost of generating more supply is low.

(as is the cost of holding excess inventory...

rocks don't go bad!)

Lettuce is a little more complicated.

Based on past orders and growth trends, you can pretty easily gauge demand.

The trick is, delivering the supply...

all sort of things like weather, bugs, disease can disrupt my ability to send you sufficient lettuce.

The cost of getting additional supply is moderate -- I just truck in lettuce from California.

Gasoline is tougher because demand shifts based on season and price elasticity.

And the supply chain is very long...

I live in NY, so most of my gas comes via a drill rig in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf to a refinery in New Jersey to a tank farm along the Hudson River to my local gas station.

At any point in that chain, a critical path issue can result in a supply constraint or overage, and those problems have cascading effects on price.

So to answer your question, the price is volitile because there is alot of demand, a complex supply chain as well as a number of independent variables (currency exchange rates, weather, etc) that can affect the price.

Prices and volatility for a commodity are driven by changes in supply and demand, more often the latter, since supplies are usually "fixed" in the short term.

Oil is a particularly volatile commodity because it is genuinely critical to so many things, transportation, manufacturing, electric power, etc.

Because of this fact, it has numerous parties ("agents," in economic language) monitoring available supplies.

This includes whole governments, that sometimes build up strategic petroleum reserves.

Because of the involvement of so many parties (actual and potential), trading in oil is a "crowded" trade, which produces volatility.

Imagine the back and forths of a bunch of people at a party in a crowded room.

Could speculation make an item more volatile?

Speculation actually reduces volatility.

Speculators purchase an item believing that the price of the item will go up in the future.

The speculator is predicting either increased demand or decreased supply.

When the price does go up the speculator sells the item.

By selling the item at the higher price the speculator increases the supply of the item into the market and the price of the item will not rise as fast due to the additional supply of the item supplied by the speculator.

In this way speculators reduce volatility.

Why is oil more volatile?

First, the unit of measure must be taken into account.

Oil priced in US dollars is much more volatile than oil priced in gold.

This is due to the rapidly changing value and demand for the US dollar (USD).

The chart below shows the volatility of oil priced in US dollars versus the volatility of oil priced in gold.

The standard deviation of the price in USDs is around 29 while the deviation when priced in gold is 0.015.

Secondly, some of the major oil producing countries have stopped, or attempted to stop, accepting US dollars for oil.

Iraq in 2000 , and Iran in 2009 .

This increases volatility (in USDs)

since buyers must quickly dump some of their USDs in an attempt to obtain some euros to purchase oil from these major producers.

Thirdly, destroying the infrastructure used for oil production can cause significant disruptions in the supply of oil which will increase volatility.

Question: Why are the prices of some commodities (e.g. oil) more volatile than others?

Why are the prices of some commodities (e.g. oil) more volatile than others?

The volatility of prices depends on supply and demand. Any disruptions in supply can cause a cascading effect on price.

Prices and volatility for a commodity are driven by changes in supply and demand. Having a complex supply chain, as well as a number of independent variables such as currency exchange rates, weather, etc. can also affect the price, as well as destroying the infrastructure used for oil production. Because of the involvement of so many parties (actual and potential), trading in oil is a "crowded" trade, which produces volatility, as does speculation. Oil priced in US dollars is much more volatile than oil priced in gold.

Prices and volatility for a commodity are driven by changes in supply and demand. When demand responds similarly to economic shocks but with much greater excess supply, they are considerably less volatile. Having a complex supply chain, as well as a number of independent variables such as currency exchange rates, weather, etc. can also affect the price.

Disruptions in supply can trigger uncertainty or volatility in the markets, especially with oil.

Because of the involvement of so many parties (actual and potential), trading in oil is a "crowded" trade, which produces volatility.

Speculators purchase an item believing that the price of the item will go up in the future and by selling the item at the higher price, the speculator increases the supply of the item into the market and the price of the item will not rise as fast due to the additional supply of the item supplied by the speculator.

Destroying the infrastructure used for oil production can cause significant disruptions in the supply of oil which will increase volatility.


Borrowing to invest is almost always a bad idea.

You'd have to take out an unsecured loan, which has a higher interest rate, or a secured loan and put at risk whatever you are securing the loan with.

You need some means to make payments on the loan, or if interest is being added to the balance then take the compounding effect into account with regards to the cost of the money and how much you will really end up owning.

In order to come out ahead you need to 'invest' in something that will yield a return that is higher than the cost of borrowing the money, such high yields always come with higher risk, meaning that you will actually GET that return is less and less of a sure thing..

so now you are talking about the 'chance' to make money, Or a chance your 'investment' could fail, perhaps badly.

Meaning you could well do nothing but end up in debt with little to nothing to show for it.

If someone claims to have a 'sure thing' and is encouraging you to borrow money to invest in it, I'd be checking their back for a fin and remembering the lyrics "when the shark bites ...

scarlet billows start to spread"

money.stackexchange.com/users/3924/Chuck van der Linden

The question should read: "Borrow huge money for speculating".

This is a bad idea on many levels.

The lowest rates available will be from time-limited credit card offers, followed by broker margin accounts.

Personal loans are going to be higher.

My advice: if you insist on throwing your money away, go to Vegas with $40k.

At least you'll get some complimentary food and drink.

If you are looking for money to speculate in the capital markets, then your brokers will already lend to you at a MUCH more favorable rate than an outside party will.

For instance, with $4,000 you could EASILY control $40,000 with many brokers, at a 1% interest rate.

This is 10:1 leverage, much like how US banks operate...

every dollar that you deposit with them, they speculate with 10x as much.

Interactive Brokers will do this for you with your current credit score.

They are very reputable and clear through Goldman Sachs, so although reputable is subjective in the investment banking world, you won't have to worry the federal government raiding them or anything.

If you are investing in currencies than you can easily do 50:1 leverage as an American, or 100:1 as anyone else.

This means with only $400 dollars you can control $40,000 account.

If you are investing in the futures market, then there are many many ways to double and triple and quadruple your leverage at the lowest interests rates.

Any contract you enter into is a loan from the market.

You have to understand, that if you did happen to have $40,000 of your own money, then you could get $4,000,000 account size for speculating, at 1% interest.

Again, these are QUICK ways to lose your money and owe a lot more!

So I'd really advise against it.

A margin call in the futures market can destroy you.

I advise you to just think more efficiently until you come up with a way to earn that much money initially, and then speculate.

Borrow money and start a business.

Follow your business plan and invest in yourself and your entrepreneurship.

If you mean invest in the market, do not borrow money.

In your plan, you are willing to make payments right?

Take the money you would make as a payment and save it until you have $1000.

Open a Vanguard account Buy into the star fund

Add your payment money from step 1 to the star fund every month

Wait

until you are of age to retire Retire There are lots of things you can do better, but borrowing money to invest in the market for a couple of years is not one of them.

Investing is boring, saving is boring, and planning your financial future is boring.

It takes a consistent effort and you aren't going to get rich quick.

Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club )?

Question: Where can I borrow money in the US if I have a good credit (730+)? I have heard community unions a good place to borrow money..but the lowest they could get is 12 percent. Can I borrow from a different place with an interest lower than is...I am interested in the Range of 30k to 40k dollars..and planning to repay them in 16 to 24 months..any ideas are greatly appreciated.

Where can I borrow money for investing?

If you are looking to borrow for investment, then your broker will lend at a much lower rate than a bank. You could also open a Vanguard account or try social lending.

The lowest rates available will be from time-limited credit card offers, followed by broker margin accounts. If you are looking for money to speculate in the capital markets, brokers will lend to you at a much more favorable rate than any outside party, e.g. at a 1% interest rate. You could also consider opening a Vanguard account or buying into the star fund or social lending, e.g. Lending Club.

Open a Vanguard account or buy into the star fund

Social lending  (for example:  Lending Club )