query: Should I prioritize retirement savings inside of my HSA?

positive: "Unquestionably I think the priority should be funding retirement through ROTH/IRA/401K over HSA extra.  Obviously you need to fund your HSA for reasonable and expected medical expenses.  Also there is some floor to your more traditional retirement funding. Beyond that what does one do with excess dollars?  Given the lack of flexibility and fees, it seems clear to do ROTH IRA and 401K. Beyond that what then?  You may want to decide to ""take some money home"" and pay taxes on it.  Do you have a desire to own rental property or start/purchase a business?  Upgrade your home? etc... If all those things are taken care of, only then would I put money into an HSA. YMMV but most people, maxing a ROTH IRA alone, will have plenty of money for retirement given a reasonable rate of return."

positive: "You would want to prioritize Roth and retirement over HSA. As the HSA is only for health and dental expenses, which you will always have, overfunding it will put you in a bit of a pickle for all of the life involved. For example, even if you or a loved one develop a strange & expensive ailment, the HSA will only cover the medical costs, but not any travel to specialists, hotel stays, home alterations, special vehicles, or lifestyle alterations (food, clothing). However, you will eventually stop working even if you are healthy throughout your life.  I would suggest that you treat the HSA as a part of your overall emergency fund, giving it a cap the same as you would normal non-retirement savings. Since you stated you have three young children, small and large medical expenses (such as braces, trips to the emergency room) are something that are almost guaranteed, thus having fairly large amount in the HSA would be very beneficial throughout their time with you. Once the children have left however, if you still have an overwhelming balance in your HSA, you may not want to add anymore to the HSA. Setting a cap for the HSA based off a certain number of years of deductible payments for medication would be a good place to start.  Roth accounts, whether it be within your company's 401k plan or the IRAs for yourself and your spouse, are single-handedly the best location for your money for long-term savings. Roth money grows tax-free, is immune to Required Minimum Distribution provisions, and will avoid estate escrow when going to one's beneficiaries. Even if you tap into the funds prior to age 59 1/2, you would only pay taxes on any investment growth, in addition to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. If you have established Roth IRA accounts and have an AGI that disallows you to further contribute to them, there is still a provision to get Roth funds contributed via conversion through what is commonly called a ""back door"" Roth."

negative: When you take any money out of an HSA, you'll get a 1099-SA. HSAs work a little differently than a 401(k).  With a 401(k), you aren't supposed to take any money out until retirement.  HSAs, however, are spending accounts.  I take money out of my HSA every year. As long as you spend the money you take out of your HSA on qualified medical expenses, there are no taxes or penalties due.  The bank that holds your HSA doesn't know or care what you spend the money on; they will certainly allow you to empty your HSA account.  Anything you take out will be reported to the IRS (and to you) on a 1099-SA.  At tax time, along with your tax return, you send in a form 8889, on which you report to the IRS what you took out of HSA, and you also certify how much of that money was spent on medical expenses.  If any of it was spent on something else, taxes and penalties are due.

negative: Yes, anything that lowers your MAGI will help you avoid the cliff, and all above the line deductions like HSA/IRA contributions do so. I'd prioritize maxing HSA contributions over maxing IRA contributions, but that's another topic. Here's a good article on avoiding the cliff, but you've already got it figured correctly: Stay Off the Obamacare ACA Premium Subsidy Cliff Here's what goes into MAGI for ACA purposes (from healthcare.gov): Your MAGI is the total of the following for each member of your   household who’s required to file a tax return: You mentioned traditional IRA, and that's important since Roth IRA contributions do not lower AGI.

negative: Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better.  My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).

negative: "Curious, are you asking about average, or the good numbers? The median family doesn't have $2500 to address an emergency. We are a nation of debtors, and spenders. A young couple at .8 is doing well. It means they saved 20% for a down payment, and just bought a house. Not too tough to buy with 5% down, have no other savings, and a student loan to put the debt to equity over 100%.  Older people should be shooting for zero. I semi-retired at 50, and my mortgage is at about 8% of my net worth. 50% would be too high. Others 50+ should have at least 50% equity in their home and nearly half their ""number,"" the amount needed to retire. So, a target is 25% maximum.  These numbers shouldn't impact you at all. You should plan wisely, spend frugally, and prioritize your goals. There are 'zero debt' people out there who make me look reckless, and others who invest in rentals with a goal of keeping them highly leveraged.  Neither group is wrong, what's right for you is what lets you sleep at night."

negative: The big benefit of a health savings account is the savings aspect. HSAs let you save up and invest money for your health care expenses. You don't just pay for medical care with pretax dollars - you get to invest those pretax dollars (possibly until you've retired). If you can afford to put money in the plan now, this can be a pretty good deal, especially if you're in a high tax bracket and expect to remain there after retirement. There are a lot of obnoxious limitations and restrictions, and there's political risk to worry about between now and when you spend the money (mostly uncertainty about what the heck the health insurance system will look like after the fight over ObamaCare and its possible repeal.)

negative: From HSA Resources -  I understand that I can reimburse myself from my HSA for qualified medical expenses that I pay out-of-pocket but is there a time limit? Do I need to reimburse myself in the same year? You have your entire lifetime to reimburse yourself. As long as you had your HSA established at the time the expense was incurred, you save the receipt and it was not otherwise reimbursed, you can reimburse yourself for the expense from your HSA even years later. The important thing not asked or mentioned above is that the HSA must be in place before the expense occurred. In your case, should the LASIK procedure be before the HSA is established, it's not an eligible expense.

negative: I second this. You should be able to keep them in place. As far as I know, you can leave the HSA funds with the existing administrator indefinitely, unlike a 401k. I'm not certain of that rule, but I think that is accurate. It is possible the current administrator may include a maintenance fee or something, so watch it.  I left my employer 4 months ago and have kept my HSA with the same administrator. I don't recall hearing anything in the exit paperwork about a requirement to move, I haven't received anything in the mail telling me to move it, nor have any fees or other charges been implemented that would cause me to move.

negative: I'd keep the risk inside the well-funded retirement accounts. Outside those accounts, I'd save to have a proper emergency fund, not based on today's expenses, but on expenses post house. The rest, I'd save toward the downpayment. 20% down, with a reserve for the spending that comes with a home purchase.  It's my opinion that 3-5 years isn't enough to put this money at risk.

negative: "The presenter suggested we keep records of our claims for 10+ years in paper form. This seemed to be overkill. It would be overkill if you're taking distributions regularly and you have enough valid (and otherwise unreimbursed) medical receipts each year to correspond to your distributions. However, if you are pumping money into the HSA without regular distributions, then you may need to keep receipts for a long time, possibly since the beginning of your HSA. For example: If the IRS was to audit my HSA deductions would the Aetna online claims be adequate? It's better than nothing, but it is not ideal. You need to provide proof of what you actually paid, not just what was billed. (How would the IRS know if you actually paid the bill?) So, the bill and receipt together would be preferred. Also, there are many eligible expenses for HSA that would not be covered by your health insurance and would not appear in your Aetna statements (dental work for example). Personally I have an excel spreadsheet with every eligible expense listed, every contribution and distribution I make, and a box of receipts since I opened the HSA account. Should I also archive screenshots of these claims digitally somewhere? If you have the time and diligence to do it, then it wouldn't hurt. I personally am only one house fire away from having to make a lot of phone calls if I wanted to re-build my receipts folder from scratch. I actually have ""scan my HSA receipts"" on my todo list (where's it been for years as a pretty low priority). Lastly it makes sense to spend the money in my HSA on anything eligible because you can never roll it over into a retirement account, its shaky if another person (spouse) could get reimbursed for eligible medical expenses if you die, and if you lose your receipts you may not be able to spend all of the HSA money tax free. Is this an accurate assessment or is there a reason why I should not touch the HSA money at all and wait to reimburse my eligible expenses. First off, if you are married the HSA can be transferred to your spouse. But in general, it really depends on what you would do with the money if you distributed it right away. If you need the money to pay debts, bills, etc, then it might make sense to take it, but if it would be extra money that you would invest somewhere, then you should leave it in the HSA because it grows tax free while it's in there and (probably) wouldn't if you take it out. The caveat though is that you need to find an HSA administrator that offers your preferred investment choices. As for your worry that you might lose your receipts, well, that's a valid point- but I wouldn't drive my decision based on that- I would archive them digitally to remove that concern completely. ...Should I reimburse myself from ... the HSA funds if I am not hitting the 401k limit yet? It depends. If it's a Roth 401k, all other things being equal, (you are able to choose the same investments with your HSA as you can choose in your 401K, and the costs are the same), then you are better off leaving the money in your HSA rather than pulling it out and putting it into the Roth 401k. The reason is that there is no tax difference, and once you put it into the 401K you (probably) can't touch it (for free) until you retire. With the HSA, if you could have taken a distribution but chose not to, then you can take that amount of money out anytime you want to without any consequences, just like your normal checking account. However, if you have a traditional 401k, and if taking HSA distributions would increase your cash flow such that you could afford to contribute more to the 401k, then this would lower your tax burden that year by reducing your taxable income."

negative: "I have a couple other important considerations regarding external HSA accounts vs employer sponsored HSA accounts. Depending on your personal financial situation and goals; some people like to use HSA accounts as an extra retirement account (since the money can be withdrawn penalty free in retirement for non-medical expenses, and completely tax & penalty free at any time for medical expenses). If your intended use for the HSA account is an investment vehicle for retirement, then you may find more use/benefit out of an external provider that may provide more or better investment options than your employers HSA investment options. There can be a lot of additional value in those extra investment options over greater periods of time. Another VERY important consideration for FICA taxes (FICA includes Social Security & Medicare) that I don't believe was mentioned before - for those earners who are under the maximum social security wage limit, you are paying 6.2% of each paycheck into social security taxes. As others have mentioned you can ""save"" this tax through your employer’s plan if you set up the account to be funded pre-tax from your paychecks. However, in doing so, you are lowering your overall contributions into social security, which may lower your social security benefits in your retirement years!  If this is ultimately going to lower your SSA benefits in retirement then that is a big future cost that may steer you against the pre-tax employer contributions. Think of social security as part of your retirement plan, not as a tax but instead as an additional check you put away for yourself for retirement every month. Of course, this is only an important consideration if SSA is still going to be around when you retire, but let's assume that it will be. This is not an issue for higher earners, earning well above the max SSA taxable wages. There is no wage limit on the 1.45% Medicare tax withholding's, and there is certainly no harm in saving Medicare taxes because it will not affect future Medicare benefits. So for taxpayers earning well over the max SSA wages, they will just save the 1.45% Medicare taxes without affecting their SSA contributions and resulting retirement benefits.  So again, it all comes down to personal situations. Depending on your earnings and goals, employer plan may or may not be the way to go.  Personally, for my lower earning clients, friends and family, I tend to recommend that they do whatever they can to maximize their social security benefits in retirement. So I would advise them to either use the external provider account, or the employer plan but with post-tax contributions so you don't lower the SSA withholding's but can still claim the income tax deduction on your tax return. YMMV -Dan"

negative: If you can afford to max out an HSA and cover out of pocket expenses without withdrawing from it, it makes sense to do so.  It might sound initially risky to tie too much money to healthcare expenses, perhaps you'll enjoy exceptional health and not need those funds. However, the annual contribution limit ($3,350/year for an individual) is low enough that it's unlikely you'd overfund your HSA, but even if you didn't need it all for healthcare, after 65 you can withdraw HSA funds without the 20% withdrawal penalty that you're hit with if under 65, so best case it's tax-free, worst-case it's like an IRA.  From a tax perspective, your contributions are a tax-deduction like a traditional IRA, there's no tax on the gains, and you withdraw it tax-free as well, so long as you have healthcare expenses. The tricky bit is you can get reimbursed for your expenses at any time. If you pay out of pocket now, in 20 years you can get a reimbursement from your HSA: From HSA Bank's FAQ Can I use my tax-free HSA savings to pay for — or reimburse myself for   — IRS-qualified medical expenses from a previous year?    Yes, as long as   the IRS-qualified medical expenses were incurred after your HSA was   established, you can pay them or reimburse yourself with HSA funds at   any time. Just be sure to keep sufficient records to show that these   expenses were not previously paid for by another source or taken as an   itemized deduction in any prior tax year.

negative: "I suppose I should update this with what I ended up using some of my HSA funds for... dental work! I'm in my mid-20's and it came time for my wisdom teeth to be removed. While my dental insurance covered the procedure, I had to pay out of pocket for the fancy ""conscious sedation"" ($325 to make me nice and relaxed, versus plain Novocaine and nervously holding my mouth open, while I get my teeth ripped out). Luckily, I had my HSA to cover it. Also, I may need braces... :\ Most dental insurance won't cover the cost of orthodontics 100%, so that's another costly, common, and easily-overlooked expense a younger person may have that spare HSA funds can cover."

negative: I fell into a similar situation as you.  I spent a lot of time trying to understand this, and the instructions leave a lot to be desired.  What follows is my ultimate decisions, and my rationale.  My taxes have already been filed, so I will let you know if I get audited! 1.)  So in cases like this I try to understand the intent.  In this case section III is trying to understand if pre-tax money was added to your HSA that you were not entitled too.  As you describe, this does not apply to you.  I would think you should be ok not including section III (I didn't.) HOWEVER, I am not a tax-lawyer or even a lawyer!   2.) I do not believe these are medical distributions From the 8889 doc....   Qualified HSA distribution.   This is a distribution from a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) that is contributed by your employer directly to your HSA. This is a one-time distribution from any of these arrangements. The distribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the HSA and is subject to the testing period rules shown below. See Pub. 969 for more information.   So I don't think you have anything to report here.   3.) As you have no excess this line can just be zero.   4.) From the 8889 doc This is a distribution from your traditional IRA or Roth IRA to your HSA in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer.   Again, I don't think this applies to you so you can enter zero. 5.) This one is the easiest.  You can always get this money tax free if you use it for qualified medical expenses. From the 8889   Distributions from an HSA used exclusively to pay qualified medical expenses of the account beneficiary, spouse, or dependents are excludable from gross income. (See the line 15 instructions for information on medical expenses of dependents not claimed on your return.) You can receive distributions from an HSA even if you are not currently eligible to have contributions made to the HSA. However, any part of a distribution not used to pay qualified medical expenses is includible in gross income and is subject to an additional 20% tax unless an exception applies.   I hope this helps!

negative: This will likely cause either (a) running out of funds in HSA #2, as   the aggregate $6500 limit is nearing (b) an over-contribution   situation between HSA #1 and HSA #2. .... 2014 HSA contributions are under the limit by $3000. 2015 expenses currently sit at about $3000. The solution is to stop putting money into HSA #2 so that you don't go over the aggregate limit for this tax year; But then using the money in HSA #1 to pay the medical costs. If the person making the contribution had the ability to put money into either HSA then they should have the ability to spend that money from either account. I realize the goal of the April transaction was to be able to effectively put $9500 into the HSA system in CY 2015. With the transaction that missed the deadline by seconds that opportunity is lost. But any medical costs that can be paid with money in HSA #1 should be paid for with money from that account. You don't have to keep funds in HSA #1, while worrying about HSA# 2 running out of funds. The beauty of an HSA is that you can continue to pay medical expenses out of an account for years after you no longer have a High deductible insurance plan. It can even be used in retirement.

negative: 4% of 30k ($1,200) is dwarfed by an $18,000 base pay increase. At 48k maxing out IRA will take ~11.5% of gross income, so at current position (30k salary) 401k contributions would likely be limited to the matching portion anyway. The long-term benefit of a deferred tax retirement plan can't fully be known since tax rates can change over time. If rates increase, the benefit can be mitigated. Personally, I only contribute to 401k enough to get full employer matching, and then I prioritize HSA, IRA, after those, some people like to go back to 401k to max, but I prefer other investments. At this low of an income range, the increase in base pay is far too significant to worry over potential differences in tax-deferred vs after tax investments.

negative: I like HSAs. My employer had one for one year, but then took it away. Money you put into an HSA is tax-advantaged, you can invest it however you want, it can be used for healthcare if you need it, and you can stop adding to it at any time. You're healthy now, but it's likely there will be a time when you're not, and then it would be nice to have money already available.

negative: Unfortunately you can't use your HSA to pay for expenses in year A. Qualified medical expenses for an HSA must occur after the date the HSA account was established. (Established typically means the date the account was opened in your name.) The other answers already mostly answered your other questions, but I want to really hit home some particular points that many people may not realize: The most important thing to do when you are eligible to have an HSA account, is to open an HSA account ASAP. This is true even if you don't put any money in it and you leave it empty for years. The reason is that once the account is established, all qualified medical expenses that occur after that date are eligible for distributions, even if you wait years before you fund your HSA account. The second most important thing to do is to keep track of all out of pocket medical expenses you incur after you open the HSA account. All you need is a simple spreadsheet and a place to store your receipts. Once you have the account and are tracking expenses, now you can put money into your HSA and take it out whenever you'd like. (With limits- you can't put in more than the contribution limit for a single tax year, and you can't take out more than your eligible expenses to date.) Helpful Tip: Many people don't fund their HSA because they can't afford to set aside extra money to do so. Fortunately, you don't have to. For example, suppose you have some dental work and it costs you $500. Once you get the bill, before you pay it, put the $500 into your HSA account. The next day, take the $500 back out and pay your dental bill with it. Most HSA accounts will give you a debit card to make this even easier to pay the bill. By putting the money into your HSA for 1 day you just received a $500 tax deduction. Alternatively you can always pay out of pocket like you normally would, track your receipts, and wait until the end of the year (or up until April 15 of the next year). I like this option because I can pay all of my medical bills with a credit card and get cash back. Then at the end of the year, I add up the expenses, deposit that much into my HSA, and if I'd rather put that money somewhere else I just pull it out the next day. If you decide you don't need the money right away that's even better since you can leave it in the HSA account and invest it. Like a Roth account, you don't pay tax on the growth you achieve inside of an HSA. Another Tip: if your employer offers the service of automatically making deposits into your HSA by reducing your paycheck, you should definitely try to do that if you can afford it, rather than manually making contributions as I described in the previous tip. When your employer makes the contributions for you, your wages are reduced by that amount on your W2, so you end up saving an additional 7% in FICA taxes.

negative: This is similar to your TFSA question. While the S in RRSP or TFSA stands for savings, it does not stipulate exactly what instruments you use to build up those savings. With few exceptions, you can hold any type of investment in either an RRSP or TFSA. Thus, do not think of them as savings accounts per se, but more like umbrella accounts, or plans. It's actually the financial industry that creates these misnomers of so-called RRSPs, which are usually GICs or balanced mutual funds held inside an RRSP plan, or TFSAs, which are literally savings accounts held inside a TFSA plan. The most versatile accounts are the self-directed RRSP or TFSA accounts, usually through a discount broker, where you can purchase many different types of investments inside your registered accounts, including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, GICs, gold, etc. Thus a share purchase plan held inside an RRSP is completely eligible and may be a sensible investment for retirement savings.

negative: Ironically, anyone can say anything, but it doesn't make it true. In normal times, the IRS can audit you for 3 years, or up to 6 for certain cases of fraud - From the IRS site -  How far back can the IRS go to audit my return? Generally, the IRS can   include returns filed within the last three years in an audit. If we   identify a substantial error, we may add additional years. We usually   don’t go back more than the last six years. HSA spending is reported each year, just like any Schedule A deductions. Each year, I have my charitable receipts, and they are not sent in. They are there in case of audit. I don't need to save them forever, nor does one need their medical bills forever. 3 years. 6 if you wish to be paranoid. The EOBs should be enough.  The HSA is unique in that you deposit pretax dollars (like a traditional IRA or 401(k)) yet withdrawals for qualified expenses come out tax free (like a Roth).  In my opinion, as long as your medical plan qualifies you for an HSA, I'd maximize its use. The older you get, the more bills you'll have, and at some point, you'll be grateful to your younger self that you did this.

negative: "I also talked to the IRS yesterday to get a few of my own questions answered, and I asked a few of these while I was at it (as I didn't know the answers for sure either, even after reading IRS pub 969). To answer your specific questions: I would, however, like to confirm a few things: You are allowed to have multiple HSA accounts. My company forces me to   use a specific bank if they are going to be make contributions.   However, I would like to move this money to a higher-risk/higher-yield   account. You are allowed to withdraw money to reimburse any past payments that   were made after the HSA is opened – perhaps years later. This would   allow me to accumulate interest on the money and then get reimbursed   later. You can transfer money between HSAs, etc. and the money will still   cover any payments since the first HSA was opened? I am currently unmarried and without children. An HSA can be made to   pay for any dependent or spouse medical bills as well. I am currently   signed up with an HSA that is marked as ""individual"" or something. I   assume that once I get married, I should have no issues using this   money from the past on my wife and kids? Note that I am not a certified tax professional and you should not rely on this information for your own tax decisions, but should investigate or contact the IRS yourself."

negative: You will find lots of rules of thumb but there is no universal truth to how much you should save. There are factors you DO need to consider though: you should start as early as possible to set money aside for retirement. You should then use a retirement calculator to at least get an understanding of the amount you need to set aside each month to achieve the desired retirement income; your default should be not to spend money and only spend money when you must. Leisure, travel and eating out should come last after you have saved up; you should have funds for different terms. For example, my wife and I have an emergency fund for unexpected expenses or losses in income. The rule of thumb here generally is to have 3-6 months of salary saved up. A longer term fund should be created for larger expenses like buying a car or preparing the cashdown on a property. Finally, the retirement fund which should cover your needs after you have retired.

negative: It's in your interest to pay down these loans (just like any debt) at an accelerated rate, so long as you prioritize it appropriately and don't jeopardize your financial situation. What are your plans for the $50k? Is it a downpayment on a house? Are you already saving for retirement? At what rate are you saving each year? These are all important questions. There is nothing wrong with using some of the $50k to make a dent in your loans, but overpaying a debt at 6% should not be your first priority. Save for retirement, pay off credit cards, make sure you have an emergency fund of between 6-12 months living expenses (depending on your comfort level as well as how stable you think your job is, and how much you could downsize if need be). Then, tackle extra loan payments. Unfortunately 6% is about what you would expect to get in the market these days, so you can't necessarily make more money investing your remaining cash on hand as compared to putting it towards your loans. And you could always make less. Personally, I would divide the $50k as follows. Insert your own numbers/circumstances :) Of the ~$30k that remains...

negative: If your employer matches a percentage of your contributions, then you should try to max out your plan. Once you have completed maxing out your 401k, you may want to open up an IRA for several reasons: will your 401k be enough to sustain your lifestyle in retirement? Your IRA allows you to save even more for retirement. you can invest in all sorts of stuff through your IRA that might not be available in your plan. you can withdraw the principal from your IRA, usually after five years. This serves as another form of savings. IRAs have some asset protection in the event of bankruptcy. A normal savings or investment account usually does not offer such protection.

negative: "One can generalize on Traditional vs Roth flavors of accounts, I suggest Roth for 15% money and going pretax to avoid 25% tax.  If the student loan is much over 4%, it may make sense to put it right after emergency fund.  For emergency fund priority - I'm assuming EF really requires 2 phases, the $2500 broken transmission/root canal bill, and the lose your job, or need a new roof level bills. I'm in favor of doing what let's you sleep well. I'm also quick to point out that if you owe $2500 at 18%, yet have $2500 in your emergency fund, you're really throwing away $450 in interest each year. There's an ongoing debate of ""credit card as emergency fund."" No, I don't claim that your cards should be considered an emergency fund, per se, but I would prioritize knocking off the 18% debt as a high priority. Once that crazy interest debt is gone, fund the ER, and find a balance for savings and the next level ER, the 6-9mo of expenses one. One can choose to fund a Roth IRA, but keep the asset out of retirement calculations. It's simply an emergency account returning tax free interest, and if never used, it eventually is retirement money. A Roth permits withdrawal of deposited funds with no tax or penalty, just tracking it each year. This actually rubs some people the wrong way as it sounds like tapping your retirement account for emergencies. For my purpose, it's a tax free emergency fund. Not retirement, unless and until you are saving so much in the 401(k) you need more tax favored retirement money. I wrote an article some time ago, the Roth Emergency Fund which went into a bit more detail.  Last - keep in mind, this is my opinion. I can intelligently argue my case, but at some point, it's up to the individual to do what feels right. Paying 18% debt off a bit slower, say 4 years instead of 3, in favor of funding the matched 401(k), to me, you run the numbers, watch the 401(k) balance grow by 2X your pretax deposits, and see that in year 3, your retirement account is jump-started and far, far more than your remaining 18% cards. Those who feel the opposite and wish to be debt free first are going to do what they want. And the truth is, if this lets you sleep better at night, I'm in favor of it."

negative: Comparing retirement savings to ordinary investment is not an apples-to-apples comparison - retirement savings are savings for retirement - if you want to invest in things now and live off of (or reinvest) those earnings, then retirement accounts are not the right vehicle.   That said, here are some benefits of the main types of retirement accounts: Benefits of a 401(k): Benefits of a tratitional IRA: Benefits of a ROTH 401(k): Benefits of a ROTH IRA: (the benefits above are not exhaustive, there are other benefits such as using a ROTH IRA for higher ed. expenses, etc. but those are the highlights) If you have a plan for how you hope to use the money now rather than later does it make sense to hold onto it? If your plan is meant to provide income at retirement, and earns returns higher than the returns plus matches and tax benefits you get from retirement accounts, then yes, it may make more sense, but those benefits are generally very hard to beat.  Plus, having the money locked away in an account that is painful to tap can be a good thing - you're less tempted to use that money for foolish decisions (which everyone makes at some point).

negative: The biggest issue is your lack of diversification.  Your real estate investments have performed quite well so far, but you have also likely enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth that is not sustainable. In the long term, stocks have always outperformed real estate investments, which tend to track more closely to the inflation rate. You need more balance for when when the real estate market cools off. You don't mention tax-deferred retirement savings accounts. You should prioritize your attention to these to keep your income tax low. Consider selling one of your investment properties if you can't adequately fund the 401k.

negative: "Whether you can establish an HSA has nothing to do with your employment status or your retirement plan. It has to do with the type of medical insurance you have.  The insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is ""HSA compatible"". To be HSA compatible, a plan must have a ""high deductible"" -- in 2014, $1250 for an individual plan or $2500 for a family plan. It must not cover any expenses before the deductible, that is, you cannot have any ""first dollar"" coverage for doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc. (There are some exceptions for services considered ""preventive care"".) There are also limits on the out-of-pocket max. I think that's it, but the insurance company should know if their plans qualify or not. If you have a plan that is HSA compatible, but also have another plan that is not HSA compatible, then you don't qualify. And all that said ... If you are covered under your husband's medical insurance, and your husband already has an HSA, why do you want to open a second one? There's no gain. There is a family limit on contributions to an HSA -- $6,550 in 2014. You don't get double the limit by each opening your own HSA. If you have two HSA's, the combined total of your contributions to both accounts must be within the limit. If you have some administrative reason for wanting to keep separate accounts, yes, you can open your own, and in that case, you and your husband are each allowed to contribute half the limit, or you can agree to some other division.  I suppose you might want to have an account in your own name so that you control it, especially if you and your husband have different ideas about managing finances. (Though how to resolve such problems would be an entirely different question. Personally, I don't think the solution is to get into power struggles over who controls what, but whatever.) Maybe there's some advantage to having assets in your own name if you and your husband were to divorce. (Probably not, though. I think a divorce court pretty much ignores whose name assets are in when dividing up property.)  See IRS publication 969, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/index.html for lots and lots of details."

negative: One strategy to consider is a well-diversified index fund of equities. These have historically averaged 7-8% real growth. So withdrawing 3% or 4% yearly under that growth should allow you to withdraw 30+ years with little risk of drawing down all your capital. As a bonus you're savings target would come down from $10 million to $2.5 million to a little under $3.5 million.

negative: My opinion is that 50% savings is the number to shoot for, and I strive toward that number as often as possible.  10% - savings for retirement 10% - savings for short term emergency fund 25% - payment on mortgage principal 5% - savings for planned big purchases I overpay the principal so that 25% of my income goes to principal payments, and I separately account for the mortgage interest/home owners insurance as another expense in my budget.  Because of this aggressive payment schedule, the house I bought 2 years ago will be payed in full in another 9 years.  I own another property outright that I paid down in the same fashion and I collect rent on it as a supplement to my income.  I started with a small townhouse that I could easily afford, but now I have a much larger home that I can still easily afford. The emergency fund doesn't need to be more than 6 months of expenses, which is 3 months of income if your expenses are only 50% of your income.  I keep 6 months of expenses liquid and another 12 in a low risk investment.  Once you have your emergency fund funded, you can add that percentage to a different category (say 15% to retirement and 10% to planned big purchases), or you can over-fund it.  I have had a few catastrophes that have depleted that fund, so I like having the extra 12 months of income available. I set the last 5% aside for wants that are not regular expenses.  If I want a car, I save 5% of my income until I can pay cash for it.  I have an infinite number of these wants, so I prioritize them and buy them in order when the cash becomes available. The reason I use percentages is to keep me focused when my income increases. Instead of spending all the additional money that I could afford to spend each time I get a raise. I instead only increase my expenses to the 50% mark.  It was much harder to save 50% when I got my first job out of college, but now I live quite comfortably on that percentage and I could take a large hit to my income before I would need to make significant changes to my lifestyle.

negative: You can take a queue from any sales opportunity and position it in ways that will still appeal to someone who intends to continue working perpetually. Here are some of the points I would make: 401k matching funds are free money that you will have access to in ~20 years whether you retire or not. Long-term savings that grow in the stock market turn into residual income that will add to your standard of living whether you retire or not. There are tax advantages to deferring income if you are in a high tax bracket now. You will have flexibility to withdraw that money in future years where you might have lower earnings. (For example, in a future year, you could take a sabbatical trip to Europe for a few months without pay and draw on your savings during that time that you are not making money.) Even if you don't invest in a 401k, you and max out HSA accounts if you are eligible, and position that as money for medical expenses. If you never have medical reasons to spend that money, you can still withdraw at retirement age like a 401k or IRA. (Though it gets taxed as income if not used for qualified medical purposes at retirement time.) With an unwilling partner, it's difficult to make a lot of progress, but if you have matching funds from your employer, do make sure that you are getting at least those for yourself. Ultimately if he doesn't want to save for himself, you should for yourself. There are no guarantees in life. If he dies or leaves, you must be prepared to take care of your own needs.

negative: "@sdg - If you can be flippant, I can be pedantic. Insider Trading is not illegal. Any employee of a company can be an insider, yet most of their trades are perfectly legal. What is illegal is trading on Inside Information. Such information may be available to those within a company, or those who have some contact with an employee. In fact, if I am seated at a restaurant table and hear Bill and Warren talking about a purchase they plan to make, I am in possession of inside information and risk prosecution should I purchase shares and profit.  Often, a company will have a ""quiet period"" before earnings reports or potential stock-price-moving-news. During this time, employees are forbidden from buying or selling shares, excluding those that would be automatically bought in their retirement accounts or ESPP."

negative: "There are a great number of financial obligations that should be considered more urgent than student loan debt.  I'll go ahead and assume that the ones that can land people in jail aren't an issue (unpaid fines, back taxes, etc.). I cannot stress this enough, so I'll say it again: setting money aside for emergencies is so much more important than paying off student loans.  I've seen people refer to saving as ""paying yourself"" if that helps justify it in your mind.  My wife and I chose to aggressively pay down debt we had stupidly accrued during college, and I got completely blindsided by a layoff during the downturn.  Guess what happened to all those credit cards we'd paid off and almost paid off?  Guess what happened to my 401k? If all we had left were student loans, then I still wouldn't prioritize paying those off.  There are income limits to Roth IRAs, so if you're in a field where you'll eventually make too much to contribute, then you'll lose that opportunity forever.  If you're young and you don't feel like learning too much about investing, plop 100% of your contributions into the low-fee S&P 500 index fund and forget it until you get closer to retirement.  Don't get suckered into their high-fee ""Retirement 20XX"" managed funds. Anyway, sure, if you have at least three months of income replacement in savings, have maximized your employer 401k match, have maximized your Roth IRA contributions for the year, and have no other higher interest debt, then go ahead and knock out those student loans."


query: How and where do companies publish financial reports?

positive: Yes it is true. The US based companies have to meet the requirements placed on them by the US government. The agency with all these reports is the Security and Exchange Commission. They run the EDGAR system to hold all those required reports The SEC’s EDGAR database provides free public access to corporate   information, allowing you to quickly research a company’s financial   information and operations by reviewing registration statements,   prospectuses and periodic reports filed on Forms 10-K and 10-Q. You   also can find information about recent corporate events reported on   Form 8-K but that a company does not have to disclose to investors. EDGAR also provides access to comment and response letters relating to   disclosure filings made after August 1, 2004, and reviewed by either   the Division of Corporation Finance or the Division of Investment   Management. On May 22, 2006, the staffs of the Divisions of   Corporation Finance and Investment Management began to use the EDGAR   system to issue notifications of effectiveness for Securities Act   registration statements and post-effective amendments, other than   those that become effective automatically by law. These notifications   will be posted to the EDGAR system the morning after a filing is   determined to be effective. As pointed out by Grade 'Eh' Bacon: Other countries may require different types of information to be reported to the public, in particular, financial statements. To find the financial statements released for a particular company, you can go to the appropriate stock exchange, or often simply the company's corporate website.

negative: "US Sanctions are usually very nuanced and you should look them up yourself.  It may be widely reported that ""US sanctions X-country"" and it may be widely understood that it means all funds from anybody in that country are blocked, that USUALLY isn't the case (or ""many times"" isn't the case, I'm not going to bother quantifying that) Many times it is a comprehensive list of certain individuals and businesses that are blocked. The US Treasury publishes a list of these organizations. This misinterpretation can trickle down to companies. You would think big financial companies understand regulations, but they typically just react to how things are reported and have no uniform understanding of the financial regulations they are subject to. Private companies create unique and arbitrary company policies in reaction to the spirit of a regulation. So could it be that all Iranians cannot interact with the US financial system? Sure, thats possible. Could it be a lot more nuanced? Sure. Does it matter if the broker will actually investigate your SSN with USCIS? Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter if you disclose you are a dual citizen if they claim they can just check your SSN?  The financial institution is the one liable for misinterpreting sanctions. Let the consequences guide your actions."

negative: Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do.  All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on.  The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements.  I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares.  There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question.

negative: Day trading is probably the most often tried and failed activity in the financial world. People think they can parlay $1,000 investment into $1,000,000 in a week with little or no knowledge on how to evaluate stocks and or companies. They think they can just look at where the line graphs' been and forecast where it's going to be next week. Unfortunately if it were that simple everyone would be making money hand over fist in the market.   So in short, the reason day trading is considered a risky venture is because most of the people that attempt to do it are willfully ignorant. They intentionally choose not to read about day trading. They intentionally choose not to learn about how to read a company's financial report and they intentionally choose not to learn how to compare one stock to another. They also don't consider the fact that most of their data is 15 or more min old because of the shady rules brokers have worked into the system.  Real everyday investors that make money in the market do it by careful evaluation of the purchase they are about to make. Guess what, even they lose time to time. That's the game!

negative: I'd start with learning how to read a company's financial statement and their annual report. I would recommend reading the following: All three books are cheap and readily available. If you really want to enhance your learning, grab a few annual reports from companies' websites to reference as you learn about different aspects of the financial statements.

negative: "The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has a page specifically about working with a financial planner or advisor. It's a good starting point if you are thinking about getting a financial professional to help you plan and manage your investments. In the ""Where To Look"" section on that page, FCAC refers to a handful of industry associations. I'll specifically highlight the Financial Planning Standards Council's ""Find a planner"" page, which can help you locate a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Choose financial advice carefully.  Prefer certified professionals who charge a set fee for service over advisors who work on commission to push investment products.  Commission-based advice is seldom unbiased. MoneySense magazine published a listing last year for where to find a fee-only financial planner, calling it ""The most comprehensive listing of Canadian fee-only financial planners on the web"" — but do note the caveat (near the bottom of the page) that the individuals & firms have not been screened.  Do your own due diligence and check references."

negative: The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.

negative: The time horizon applicable to the price target is always specified by the broker or bank which published the research report.  You will find this information in the disclaimer, which is present on every research report. Usually it is 12 months, but some firms give 6 months price targets. However, you should never rely on the price target alone and always combine it with the following details (to name a few): Are the analyst's estimate above or below consensus estimates (or company guidance), did the analyst rise or lower its estimates. What is the rating on the stock (Buy, Sell, Hold...), when did he change his rating or price target.  Does the firm do business with the company? (which may influence a bullish tone and optimistic price target).

negative: This is excellent advice. I would make sure that you arm yourself with some solid questions about the company including reformatting some of the questions that they ask you. Interviews should be a two way conversation, the more you get them talking, the more comfortable they'll be to recommend you. Some questions to ask: 1. Tell me a bit about your (interviewer) background? This gets them talking a bit and allows you to relate with them 2. Where do you see the company moving in the next 5 years? 3. Why is this job opening available? 4. Can you tell me a bit about the corporate culture? 5. How can the company invest in me? 6. What are the qualities that will make me successful in this job? 7. Tell me a bit about our competitors (you should know some of them) and what sets this company apart? Make sure you're armed with as much information about the company as possible. One of the things that set me apart when I interviewed at the company I'm working at now was I came into the interview with the company's financial report and started asking specific questions about details on that report. Also, MAKE SURE TO GET A BUSINESS CARD OR CONTACT INFORMATION BEFORE YOU LEAVE. Thank you letters are an annoying formality, but it is necessary, don't rely on the recruiter to give you that information.

negative: You know that [most authors have come out *against* Amazon in this dispute](http://www.authorsunited.net), right?   Even [Stephan Colbert has sided with hachette on this one.](http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ukf9gv/amazon-vs--hachette)  The authors that seem to side *with* Amazon are ones from Amazon's own self publishing platform, which ironically has some of the *worst* terms for authors when it comes to choices of how and where they can sell their books.  I'll give credit where credit is due though: Amazon *does* let self-published authors retain the intellectual property for their works, which doesn't always happen with traditional publishers. Granted, Amazon doesn't front any of the costs involved in creating a book like traditional publishers do, and Amazon can literally change it's terms of service at any time without notifying you (whereas contracts signed with traditional publishers are legally binding), it's still a pretty nice move that Amazon only views self-publishing *authors* as a source of revenue, and not their intellectual property.

negative: "Others have covered this pretty well, but as someone who once worked for the company that allows Stansberry to publish, let me confirm that their business is about getting you to buy into the financial worldview they promote so that they can sell you more and more ""newsletters"" and ""services"". Nothing else. It's a marketing company, and Stansberry is nothing more than a copywriter."

negative: Banks do not report transactions within accounts except as required by law, usually as part of anti-money-laundering efforts. Generally those involve tracking large cash transactions. As far as large payments go, there are two reasons they might be reported to the government: taxes, and criminal investigations. For tax purposes, if the payment is considered a salary or wage (that is, you are an employee of the company and the payment is for your time working there), then the company paying you is responsible for reporting the wage and withholding applicable taxes from your salary. If you are considered an independent contract employee, then you yourself will be responsible for reporting the income to the IRS and paying the applicable taxes yourself. In the second case, unless you are already under investigation, I wouldn't worry about it. Banks are very touchy about financial records being kept private, and won't release them without a subpoena. One caveat is that this is under US law. Banks which maintain branches in multiple countries must, of course, comply with all local laws in the jurisdiction where they do business. The take away from this is that Bank of America is unlikely to report a single deposit of $75,000 into your account to anyone on their own. If it is a paper check being deposited they will probably place a hold on it to make sure it clears, but that is all.

negative: Converting the comment from @MD-Tech into answer How or where could I find info about publicly traded companies about how stock owner friendly their compensation schemes are for their board and officers? This should be available in the annual report, probably in a directors' remunerations section for most companies

negative: I started a copy shop in 1996 and found my notebook from that period just the other day. I was OBSESSED with copyright issues and how Kinko's had closed 25% of their stores -- mostly in college towns where they do course packs. Turns out, if you're NOT a multi-million dollar national chain, the book publishers DON'T want anything to do with persecuting you.   You're overthinking it IMHO. Talk to an insurance agent and a lawyer and you should be fine.

negative: Your experience supports my point, though. New Zealand is currently freer, economically speaking than America.  According to an annual report published by the Heritage Foundation in America, New Zealand is in 3rd place globally. America is 17th.  You actually have far less government than we do.

negative: "1. (a) Lookup ""Fairy-Circles"" in ""The INDEX."" of the book ""THE Natural Hiſtory OF STAFFORD-SHIRE."" by Robert Plot, LLD, Keeper of the ASHMOLEAN MUSÆUM And PROFESSOR of CHYMISTRY in the UNIVERSITY of OXFORD, published in MDCLXXXVI (1686): https://books.google.com/books?id=T03JVJkdC9gC&printsec=frontcover      \- Robert Plot, author of ""The Natural History Of Stafford-Shire"" (1686): http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/learning/pdfs/plot.pdf      (b) ""Police urge people to report crop circle damage"" by Wiltshire Times, published on 8 July 2017: http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/15398908.Police_urge_people_to_report_crop_circle_damage/      Mirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20170803125035/www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/15398908.Police_urge_people_to_report_crop_circle_damage/      \- ""Police urge people to report crop circle criminal damage"" by Wiltshire Police, published in 2017: http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/news/3873-crop-circle-criminal-damage-on-the-rise          \- ""Criminal damage warning over Wiltshire crop circle increase"" by BBC News, published on 12 July 2017: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-40581193       (c) ""400-Foot Diameter Metatron's Cube Reported July 18, 2017, At Cley Hill Near Warminster, Wiltshire, U. K."" by Linda Moulton Howe, published on 20 July 2017: https://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2547   2. (a) https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/d9q9006      (b) https://www.reddit.com/r/Missing411/comments/41oph0/supernatural_abductions_in_japanese_folklore_by/cz3we2z   3. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6rf7ek/plasma_stealth_technology_by_venik_published_on/dl4ka01  4. Read #2 (science, occult rituals, magic, United States of America) at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/dfauxj7      Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/d9q9006      Via: #26 at https://www.reddit.com/r/Missing411/comments/41oph0/supernatural_abductions_in_japanese_folklore_by/cz3we2z"

negative: Someone else might be able to provide more details - but generally yes, of course.  International corporations can pursue debt collection across borders - whether or not they do is a matter of convenience rather than law.  My understanding is that a company's ability to report on your credit report is dependent on their membership in Equifax, USA etc. - so while most of your credit is country by country, international companies or companies with any relationship in other countries can follow you cross-border if they find out your new address and report the debt w/ that address.  Since virtually every major company has some American affiliate, I wouldn't hold my breath that you can escape it indefinitely ESPECIALLY since you don't already have the debt, and have the power to actually pay for the service that you're using.  Also - this is an incredibly scummy thing to do, and no matter how you dress it up as a financial decision it's just theft. Would you leave the country without paying your landlord? Without paying for groceries or other physical goods? Why is stealing from a telecom company any different?

negative: The Dutch Financial Times published an article about how intangible assets are the most important value-determining factor of an organization, however investments, innovation and attention to these assets lack. This is contradicting but shows the challenge as well, because more than 75 percent of the average market value is from intangible assets. The challenge is that these aren’t quantified in financial metrics. Intangible assets consists of human-, organizational- and information capital.

negative: The short float ratio and percent change are all calculated based on the short interest (the total number of shares shorted).  The short interest data for Nasdaq and NYSE stocks is published every two weeks. NasdaqTrader.com shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for Nasdaq stocks, and also says the following: FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The NYSE also shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for NYSE stocks, and those dates are exactly the same as for Nasdaq stocks. Since the short interest is only updated once every 2 weeks, there is no way to see real-time updating of the short float and percent change.  That information only gets updated once every 2 weeks - after each publication of the short interest.

negative: "It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to).  It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a ""hard pull"", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something ""in collections"". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will ""help build your credit"". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular ""consumer credit rating"", as there are ""consumer credit ratings"" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: ""Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!"""

negative: Ok, so imagine I own x% of Facebook and Facebook buys WhatsApp, does   this mean I own x% of WhatsApp? Yea definitely , you own x% of Whatsapp assuming Facebook buys 100% of WhatApps which is in this case  How much shares of FaceBook do I need to own to have access to   WhatsApp's books? As WhatsApp is a privately held company by Facebook , Facebook is not obliged to reveal the books of WhatsApp , though some not all of the books of WhatsApp may appear in Facebook financial report , it really depends on Facebook Accounting policy.

negative: Weiss Ratings is an independent company providing data and analysis for the bank and insurance industries.  We’ve published the Weiss Financial Strength Ratings for banking institutions  and insurance companies since 1989 and continue to use the methodology praised by the GAO back in 1994.  Weiss Ratings has consistently graded failed institutions in the lowest Weiss Rating tier at the time of failure. We invite you to look at the Weiss Ratings' track record.

negative: This edition of News Bites looks at an article by Bob Pozen and Theresa Hamacher, published by the Financial Analysts Journal in December, at a speech by Don Phillips of Morningstar given at the Business & Wealth Management Forum held in October, and at McKinsey & Company’s most recent annual review of the asset management industry. All three discuss factors leading to success in the mutual fund industry.

negative: You do not need to file 1099-MISC to yourself if you're running as a sole proprietor - you are yourself. However, you do not deduct this amount from your business income and report it as royalties either. Your self-published book is your business income subject to SE tax. You can only deduct the actual costs of producing/writing, and the remaining amount is your Schedule C income.

negative: >*Count yourself fortunate, or something, if you’re among the 48 percent of Americans who can cough up a spare $400 in emergency cash without having to beg, borrow or steal. According to a Federal Reserve report on American households’ “economic well-being” in 2013,  fewer than half of all Americans said they’d be able to come up with four Benjamins on short notice to deal with an unexpected expense.*  >*The report, released last week by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, indicates a disparity between how Americans view their financial situation and the reality of where their finances actually stand — a signal that the recession of the late 2000s fundamentally altered the concept of doing well for many, as well as an indication that the subsequent recovery may yet be more nominal than real.*  Cross-post from /r/MAConservative

negative: "In the US, a private company with less than 500 owners can dictate who can or can't become a shareholder (this is true in general, but I'm sure there are loopholes).   Prior to Google's IPO I could not buy shares in Google at any price.   The reason Google was ""forced"" to go public is the 500 shareholder rule.   At a high level, with 500 shareholders the company is forced to do some extra financial accounting and they no longer can control who owns a share of the company, allowing me to purchase shares of google at that point.  At that point, it typically becomes in the companies best interest to go public. See this article about Google approaching the 500 shareholder limit in 2003. Further, Sorkin is not quite correct that ""securities laws mandate that the company go public"" if by ""go public"" we mean list on a stock exchange, available for general purchase.   Securities laws mandate what has to be reported in financial reporting and when you have to report it. Securities laws also can dictate restrictions on ownership of stock and if a company can impose their own restrictions. A group of investors cannot force a company onto a stock exchange.   If shares of Facebook are already for sale to anyone, then having >500 shareholders will force Facebook to file more paperwork with the SEC, it won't force Facebook onto the NYSE or NASDAQ.   When that point is reached, it may be in Facebook's best interest to have an IPO, but they will not be required by law to do so. Update:  CNN article discusses likely Facebook IPO in 2012. When companies have more than 500   shareholders, they're required to make   significant financial disclosures --   though they can choose to remain   private and keep their stock from   trading publicly. However, most   companies facing mandatory disclosures   opt to go public. The Securities and Exchange Commission   gives businesses lots of time to   prepare for that milestone. Companies   have until 120 days after the end of   the fiscal year in which they cross   the 500-shareholder line to begin   making their disclosures. If Facebook   tips the scale this year, that gives   it until April 2012 to start filing   financial reports."

negative: "I always hesitate to provide an answer to ""how does this affect my credit score?"" questions, because the credit agencies do not publish their formulas and the formulas do change over time. And many others have done more reverse engineering than I to figure out what factors do affect the scores. To some extent, there is no way to know other than to get your credit score and track it over time. (The credit report will tell you what the largest negative factors are.) However, let me make my prediction. You have credit, you aren't using a large percentage of it, and don't have defaults/late payments. So, yes, I think it would help your credit score and would build a history of credit. Since this is so unusual, this is just an educated guess."

negative: I am going to break rank slightly with the consensus so far.  Here's the deal, it probably DOES help your credit slightly to pay it multiple times per month if it isn't a hassle, but the bump is likely to be minimal and very temporary.  Here's why: A key component of your score is your credit usage ratio. That is the ratio of how much of your credit limits you are using. You want to keep this number down as low as possible. Now here is where it gets tricky. Although you have a grace period to pay off your card with no interest, the credit card companies don't generally report the balance as of the due date. They either report the high balance or an average balance over the month. That is, it is based on how much you use, not how much balance you carry over each month. It isn't very intuitive, but that's just how it is. So technically, keeping that balance lower over the course of the month WILL probably help you, but the credit usage ratio is generally a rolling average over the last x months, so the effect will wear off quickly. So it is probably not worth doing unless you know you are going to apply for a loan in the next 6 months and need a temporary, small bump. Another consideration is that paying early provides no real financial benefit in terms of finance charges, but you are giving up liquidity which does have some value.    1) You probably could get at least a little interest for keeping the money in your account a few more weeks. 2) If you have a major financial emergency, e.g. broken down car, you might appreciate the fact that you kept your options open to carry that balance over a month.

negative: "The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio  and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as ""earnings smoothing"" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be ""interesting"" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics."

negative: I still have my bank account active in usa. Can my company legally   deposit my salary in my bank account? Of course they can. Where they deposit is of no consequence (in the US, may be in India). It is who they deposit it for that matters. You need to file form W8 with the company, and they may end up withholding portion of that pay for IRS. You'll need to talk to a tax adviser in India about how to report the income back at home, and you may need to talk to a tax adviser in the US about what to do if the company does indeed remit withholding from your earnings.

negative: >They especially The Atlantic does investigative journalism. Vice on the other hand does investigative journalism on the level of Buzzfeed.   The Atlantic is a magazine publisher. They publish curated content. They do not produce that content.  Buzzfeed was started as a viral lab to track viral content, then it developed into a internet media production house. That's why they try to produce viral content, but have a general reputation for creating clickbait. The most legitimate part of its reporting is that it actually pays reporters to go to things like the Whitehouse Press junkets. Its revenue is about ~$150M a year.  Vice is a broadcast company worth over $4B. Its revenues exceed $1B a year, particularly due to its lucrative deal with HBO. The fact that HBO charges premium prices for access to this content should be enough to distinguish it from outlets like Buzzfeed (which is completely free and open to access). Vice is a producer of content and not just a publisher/broadcaster of information. You've falsely equated them in quality to buzzfeed, perhaps by correlating that they are both recent upstarts.  >I mean this linked piece is shallow to say the least.   Correct. I'm very skeptical of anyone reporting on a report that they, themselves, co-wrote, while touting co-founding an advocacy organization as somehow being a qualifier/credential. I would normally consider this to be paid content, although it is unclear if the writer paid for Vice to publish it. The quality of the image editing was also very poor. Of course, I doubt this content would ever make it into the more premium Vice communication channels, specifically I doubt this content would be covered in any capacity on HBO. That's why I said, at some point, that the quality of its reporting is inconsistent and sometimes quite dubious.  >Why you think Vice does quality work is beyond me. The only possible reason is you are their main demographic.   It's not because it appeals to me. As someone well-versed in media politics, I ensure that my media diet is diverse and broadly sourced. The reason that I think some of their work is good is because I actually read it and think some of it is actually credible and worthy of my time. It's very clear that you do not find Vice news credible, so you want to act like your perceptions are equal in value and accuracy with my perceptions of it. The problem with your logic is that I actually am exposed to its content while you self-select not to expose yourself to it. I like some of it, because I find that some of it has a reasonable basis underlying the claim and I can't get the news anywhere else. So, you think our perceptions are equally accurate although mutually exclusive (i.e. we disagree with each other) or you think your perceptions are more accurate than mine (most likely due to a confirmation bias), but the reality is that my perceptions are broadly based considerations based on a much larger sampling of their content while your perceptions amount to an opinion derived from a first impression glance.

negative: Can no one read? I never said anything about equivalence, it was an example of an off the books subsidy. And I'll pose the same question to you as the other commenter, do you think that having solar panels on your roof will keep the government from sending our military to other countries? Because if you do, that's truly laughable.   Apparently that author is clairvoyant enough to announce a 2016 report in an article dated July, 9th 2014. But I'll just assume you didn't actually read any of it. I did, and I'm not saying those figures are wrong, but that report has a clear stated agenda that is anti-oil/coal.  The report I linked was to a US agency that was only making the information available. It may also have inaccuracies, but I'm going to assume that data for identical years in these reports being interpreted wildly differently indicates one is manipulating the information. I'd assume that someone with an agenda would be more likely to manipulate the data than an agency just seeking to publish data.  Regardless, those inconsistencies should have some explanation.

negative: "I was being a bit facetious, but in general the public accounting profession  should be dedicated to the public good. Any scope restrictions placed on the auditors while performing the engagement should immediately be reported by the staff to accounting management. Basically any shady acts of the client should be noted in the work papers and reported. There's a whole bunch of rules to tell an audit staff accountant when to go above their own seniors/management if there is collusion or fraud.   Scope restrictions, ie. ""Hey you can't go in the warehouse to count inventory"", depending on the severity could qualify the audit report, disclaimer of an opinion, or withdrawal from the engagement. Therefore it's the auditors responsibility to refuse to provide a false audit report to the public or otherwise users of the financial statements. They should never act in the manner most profitable for the firm when faced with an ethical dilemma.   Then there's practicality and most audit partners will do anything it takes to keep their largest clients. On the same coin, those clients want a clean bill of reference for their creditors. Long standing relationships are most vulnerable to letting things slide in favor of the client.   There are thousands of companies and even ones publicly traded. The government would have to grow exponentially to actually audit all of these companies. That'll never happen, they have no idea where their own money goes as long as the revenues cover the expenditures."