query: When applying for a mortgage, can it also cover outstanding debts?

positive: That really depends on the lender, and in the current climate this is extremely unlikely. In the past it was possible to get a loan which is higher than the value of the house (deposit considered), usually on the basis that the buyer is going to improve the property (extend, renovate, etc.) and this increase the value of the property. Responsible lenders required some evidence of the plans to do this, but less responsible ones simply seem to have given the money. Here in the UK this was often based on the assumption that property value tends to rise relatively quickly anyway so a seemingly-reasonable addition to the loan on top of the current value of the property will quickly be covered. That meant that indeed some people have been able to get a loan which is higher than the cost of the purchase, even without concrete plans to actively increase the value of the property. Today the situation is quite different, lenders are a lot more careful and I can't see this happening. All that aside - had it been possible, is it a good idea? I find it difficult to come up with a blanket rule, it really depends on many factors -  On the one hand  mortgage interest rates tend to be significantly lower than shorter term interest rates and from that point of view, it makes sense, right?! However - they are usually very long term, often with limited ability to overpay, which means the interest will be paid over a longer period of time.

positive: Yes, but should you be even trying to get a mortgage if you can't aford at least a 5% deposit? Prove you do want the house by doing without a new car for a few years...

negative: I know you say you are aware of secured and unsecured debt and you've made your decision.  Did you do the numbers?  You will pay 44k over the life of the mortgage for that 24k (Based on 4.5% APR mortgage). Once you refinance your mortgage, do you plan on using credit for a while?  Lots of Americans are hyperfocused on credit scores.  The only times it affects your life are when you finance something, when you apply to rent a house or apartment, and sometimes when you apply for a job.  Credit score should not be a factor in this decision. You're borrowing the money at a lower rate to pay off the high rate cards because you want to pay less in interest.  Considering #1 is there any reason NOT to pay off the cards immediately, if not sooner?

negative: In general, insurance is a net good for you when it covers catastrophic losses that you would otherwise be unable to properly pay for yourself. See more here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/77570/44232. Of course, insurance is more valuable when the catastrophic event becomes more likely. The list of possible outcomes for this combination of expense + likelihood is below: 1) Unlikely event; minimal loss: Insurance has no value here; you will simply be giving money to the insurance company and never getting anything worthwhile in return. Example: insuring your car in Florida against hail damage. 2) Unlikely event; catastrophic loss: Insurance has some value; it is likely cheap to acquire due to unlikelihood of occurrence, and could reduce the possibility of unfortunate incidences from becoming life-altering. Example: insuring your car for an extra $1M liability insurance against possible medical expenses of those in an accident. 3) Likely event; minimal loss: Insurance has no value here - you will over the course of your life suffer many of these small losses, and by constantly paying insurance, you are on average losing money to the insurance companies. Example: insuring your toaster. 4) Likely event; catastrophic loss: While insurance would be valuable here, it is also going to be quite expensive. A better option may be to simply not participate in that activity. Example: insurance for participating in an unlicensed MMA fight. Your specific question refers to what I would classify as #2 above - an unlikely event, but a catastrophic loss. This implies that insurance may be worthwhile, depending on the price and payout. The price itself seems small in relation to the cost of a ticket, and the payout seems high in relation to the cost of the premium.  But does the payout actually mean to you? It is perhaps not wise to consider life insurance as a 'windfall payment'. Instead, consider life insurance as coverage for the financial realities of death - funeral expenses, and perhaps money to provide grieving time for your family before they resume or take on work [Again, insurance is coverage against catastrophic loss, not a lottery ticket to provide a windfall when the unfortunate happens]. If you are the sole provider for your family, you may also want your insurance payout to be enough to resolve any outstanding debts you have outstanding [such as a mortgage], and/or substantially cover living expenses for your family for an extended period of time. A $20k payout would likely be far more than enough to cover funeral expenses, but may not be enough to set up your family to subsist without you as a sole provider. Also consider that the chance for an accident may not seem particularly concerning while you are on the train in comparison to when you are jaywalking, or smoking the odd cigar, eating red meat, having a glass of red wine. What I mean is that there are many things in life which add some level of risk; not all of them are as obvious as a train ride, but there is always a chance of something unfortunate happening, even if you take reasonable precautions. What these two considerations imply is that perhaps instead of insuring against this very specific incident, you instead purchase overall life insurance. Rather than taking a flat payout amount, take enough of a policy only to cover the specific needs you expect - for many people, this is defined by the amount needed to cover funeral expenses only + possibly their outstanding mortgage balance. If you take the train often, your annual insurance premiums for a full insurance plan may be similar to your 'train only' insurance, while covering you in a wider variety of circumstances. Many people hesitate to think about purchasing not only life insurance not only because of the cost, but also because they do not wish to dwell on their mortality. But facing the subject head on may provide you with both financial and emotional peace of mind.  [And write up a will, while you're at it!]

negative: The fluctuation of interest rates during the next year could easily dwarf the savings this attempt to improve your credit score will have; or the reverse is true. Will the loan improve your score enough to make a difference? It will not change the number of months old your oldest account is. It will increase the breadth of your accounts. Applying for the car loan will result in a short term decrease in the score because of the hard pull. The total impact will be harder to predict.  A few points either way will generally not have an impact on your rate. You will also notice the two cores in your question differ by more than 30 points. You can't control which number the lender will use. You also have to realize the number differs every day depending on when they pull it that month. The addition of a car loan, assuming you still have the loan when you buy the house, will not have a major impact on your ability to get afford the home mortgage. The bank cares about two numbers regarding monthly payments: the amount of your mortgage including principal, interest, taxes and insurance; and the amount of all other debt payments: car loan, school loans, credit cards. The PITI number should be no more than 28%-33% of your monthly income; the other payments no more than 10%.  If the auto loan payments fit in the 10% window, then the amount of money you can spend each month on the mortgage will not be impacted. If it is too large, then they will want to see a smaller amount of your income to go to PITI. If you buy the car, either by cash or by loan, after you apply for the mortgage they will be concerned because you are impacting directly numbers they are using to evaluate your financial health. I have experienced a delay because the buyer bought a car the week before closing. The biggest impact on your ability to get the loan is the greater than 20% down payment, Assuming you can still do that if you pay cash for the car.  Don't deplete your savings to get to the 50% down payment level. Keep money for closing costs, moving expenses, furnishing, plus other emergencies. Make it clear that you can easily cover the 20% level, and are willing to go higher to make the loan numbers work.

negative: Foreclosure is at a high level the bank declaring that the debtor cannot pay their promissory note (their debt).  This is shortly followed by default, which is the removal of debtors rights to the property.  After the debtor has defaulted, he either chooses to voluntarily remove himself and his belongings from the property, or is forcibly evicted.  In the US eviction is carried out by local law enforcement, such as the sheriff's office.   The bank is now the sole owner of the property, and proceeds to sell it, in an attempt to recoup their investment.  If the bank cannot recoup their investment by selling the house, the rest may be converted to unsecured debt against the debtor.  If the bank chooses to forgive the remaining debt, the debtor may have a tax liability for cancellation of debt.  Also the debtor may also be liable for any appreciation the house did before it was sold, but this likely to be nontaxable if the house in question is the debtor's primary residence.  They also send the credit bureaus the notice of foreclosure, which is how your credit score is hurt. Private Mortgage Insurance or Lenders Mortgage Insurance will pay the lender some amount back to cover their losses. See Also:

negative: When you purchase a mortgage, you have to prove the source of your down payment.  Primarily this is so that the mortgage lender knows that there are no other outstanding liens against the property.  If you show that some or part of your down payment was a gift, there is no fraud, but it may affect your qualification for the mortgage. Consult a lawyer in your area to determine if there is a legal way to gift the money that is not taxed.  If all else fails you could just pay the tax.  Also, you should research whether your gift is above the floor of taxable gifts.

negative: As a rule, one should have a retirement. HOWEVER, you also have over a half a million dollars of debt.  Paying down debt is another way to prepare for retirement.  I would say throwing your excess money at your debts is a fine strategy right now.  Especially the student loan (the mortgage probably has a lower rate and brings tax savings, so paying it off is less urgent). If I were you I'd probably put SOMETHING into tax deferred retirement accounts because in your tax bracket, the savings from doing so are significant. The max you can put in tax deferred is $5,500 per year (each) in IRA's and up to $17,000 to your 401(k) each.  The tax-saving contribution opportunities will not come up again...you can't make up for it later. Any retirement saving beyond the tax advantaged part makes no sense while you have outstanding debt.

negative: "All very good answers for the most part, but I have a definition for Good and Bad debt which is a little bit different from those mentioned here so far. The definitions come from Robert Kiyosaki in his book ""Rich Dad Poor Dad"", which I have applied to all my debts. Good Debt - Good Debt is debt used to fund a money making asset, an asset which puts money into your pockets (or bank account) each month. In other words the income produced by that asset is more than all the expenses (including the interest repayments on the debt) associated with the asset. Bad Debt - Bad Debt is debt used to fund both money losing assets and non-assets, where the interest repayments on the debt are more than any income (if any at all) produced by the goods or services the debt was used to purchase, so that you need to take money out of your pockets (or bank account) each month to sustain the debt. Based on this definition a mortgage used to purchase the house you live in would be classed as bad debt. Why? Because you are making interest repayments on the mortgage and you have other expenses related to the house like rates and maintenance, but you have no income being produced by the house. Even a mortgage on an investment (or rental) property where the rent is not enough to cover all the expenses is considered to be bad debt. For the debt on an investment property to be considered as good debt, the rent would have to cover the full interest payments and all other expenses. In other words it would need to be a positively geared (or a cashflow positive) asset. Why is this definition important in distinguishing between good and bad debt? Because it looks at the cashflow associated with the debt and not the profit. The main reason why most investors and businesses end up selling up or closing down is due to insufficient cashflow. It may be a profitable business, or the value of the property may have increased since you bought it, but if you don't have enough cash every month to pay the bills associated with the asset you will need to sell it. If the asset produces enough cashflow to pay for all the expenses associated with the asset, then you don't have to fund the asset through other sources of income or savings. This is important in two ways. Firstly, if you are working and suddenly lose your job you don't have to worry about paying for the asset as it is more than paying for itself. Secondly, if you don't have to dig into your other source/s of income or savings to sustain the asset, then theoretically you can buy an unlimited number of similar type assets. Just a note regarding the mortgage to buy a house you live in being classed as bad debt. Even though in this definition it is considered as bad debt, there are usually other factors which still can make this kind of debt worthwhile. Firstly, you have to live somehere, and the fact that you have to live somwhere means that if you did not buy the house you would probably be renting instead, and still be stuck with a similar monthly payment. Secondly, the house will still appreciate over the long term so in the end you will end up with an asset compared to nothing if you were renting. Just another note to mention the definition provided by John Stern ""...debt is a technology that allows borrower to bring forward their spending; it's a financial time machine..."", that's a clever way to think of it, especially when it comes to good debt."

negative: "A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not ""new debt""; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks.  It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself ""on the hook"" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a ""loan modification"" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a ""streamlining"" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these ""toxic assets"". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date."

negative: Coca Cola doesn't seem to have any preferred shares outstanding. From the annual report, it does say that the number of common shares outstanding was 2,294,316,831 as of February 22, 2011. (cover page, right before the horizontal break) But normally, you can find it either toward the beginning of the document or in the statement of shareholder's equity.

negative: A retail revolving account is a more formal name for a general credit card.   A revolving account is an account created by a lender to represent debts where the outstanding balance does not have to be paid in full every month by the borrower to the lender. The borrower may be required to make a minimum payment, based on the balance amount. Retail Revolving Account Wikipedia This is different from something like a car loan or mortgage or other more structured or secured debt.   It used to be somewhat common for very large retailers to issue lines of credit to their customers in the form of a store card.  This card was a lot like a credit card but only accepted at the specific retailer.  These kinds of cards are all but extincted.  Now major retailers will simply co-brand a credit card with a major bank, the differentiation being preferred rewards when used at the retailer.

negative: "Mortgage is a (secured) debt, a combination of a promissory note, and a security interest providing the mortage holder a secured interest in the property. Yes, you are ""in debt"". But that depends upon whether you define the term ""in debt"" as a debt appearing on the balance sheet, or the net of assets - liabilities is less than zero, whether you have a ""debt"" expense on the income statement (budget), or whether the net of income - expenses is less than zero. One person might look at their budget, find the (monthly) mortgage payment listed, and judge that they have a debt payment, and thus are ""in debt"". Or they might look at their expenses, find they exceed their income, and judge that they are ""in debt"". Another person might look at their balance sheet, compare assets to liabilities, and only say they were ""in debt"" when their liabilities exceeded their assets. Some people view mortgage debt as ""good debt"", as they view certain debts as ""good"" and others as ""bad"". Trust me, having a high mortgage payment (higher 30% of your net income) is hard, and over 40% is bad. Consider you balance sheet and your income statement.  On your balance sheet, the house appears on the ""asset"" side with an (estimated) value, while the ""mortgage"" (really, the promissory note part of the mortgage) appears on the ""liability"" side. On your income statement, your house does not appear on the income side, but the mortgage (promissory note) payment appears on the expense side. So, you clearly have both a ""liability"" with a clearly-defined value and an ""expense"" with a clearly-defined payment. But do you have an ""asset""? According to an accountant, you have an ""asset"" and a ""liability"". But you do not have a business asset that is producing revenue (income), nor do you have a business asset that can be amortized and expensed to reduce taxable income. When we think about an asset, does the word have the connotation of some thing with value, something that produces income?  Well, by that measure, a house only provides income when we rent it out, and only has value when we consider selling it. As millions of families discovered during the housing (price) collapse, when the market price of your ""asset"" falls substantially, your personal financial status can fall negative and you can be ""broke""."

negative: This may not apply in your particular situation, but I think it's important to mention: When a debt collector doesn't act like a debt collector, it may be because they aren't actually a debt collector. It's certainly strange that someone called you to collect money from you, and when you asked for a simple document, they not only got off the phone quickly but they also told you the debt would be cancelled. That just doesn't make sense: Why would they cancel the debt? Why wouldn't they send you the document? My initial impression is that you were possibly being scammed. The scam can take on many forms: Whenever you are called by a debt collector (or someone pretending to be one), it's a good idea to verify their identity first. More info here.

negative: Due to the fact that months have gone by since the item was shipped to you it will be hard to resolve by sending it back.  The collection agency is now only interested in getting as much of the money as they can from you. They may have sent a percentage of the debt to the original company when they bought the debt. They may also be working on a commission. Therefore they are not interested in having everybody happy with the result. They need to follow the law, but they don't care if you are a happy customer.  The longer you wait to resolve it, the longer it will remain on the credit report. The fact that it went to collections has already hurt your score.  Yes, make sure that they update your credit file to reflect that you have paid the debt. Get it in writing. Also check with your health insurance company to see if this is at least partially covered by insurance. They generally won't cover the $12 in fees from the collections company, but they might cover part of the original bill. Depending on the item, it might also be an allowable expense for your FSA (Flexible spending account) or your HSA (Health Spending account).

negative: When you start living in US, it doesn't actually matter what was your Credit history in another country. Your Credit History in US is tied to your SSN (Social Security Number), which will be awarded once you are in the country legally and apply for it. Getting an SSN also doesn't guarantee you nothing and you have to build your credit history slowly. Opening a Checking or Savings account will not help you in building a credit history. You need to have some type of Credit Account (credit card, car loan, mortgage etc.) linked to your SSN to start building your credit history. When you are new to US, you probably won't find any bank that will give you a Credit Card as you have no Credit history. One alternative is to apply for a secured credit card. A secured credit card is one you get by putting money or paying money to a bank and open a Credit Card against that money, thereby the bank can be secure that they won't lose any money. Once you have that, you can use that to build up your credit history slowly and once you have a good credit history and score, apply for regular Credit Card or apply for a car loan, mortgage etc. When I came to US 8 years ago, my Credit History was nothing, even though I had pretty good balance and credit history back in my country. I applied for secured credit card by paying $500 to a bank ( which got acquired by CapitalOne ), got it approved and used it for everything, for three years. I applied for other cards in the mean time but got rejected every time. Finally got approved for a regular credit card after three years and in one year added a mortgage and car loan, which helped me to get a decent score now. And Yes, a good Credit Score is important and essential for renting an apartment, leasing a car, getting a Credit Card etc.  but normally your employer can always arrange for an apartment given your situation or you need to share apartment with someone else. You can rent a car without and credit score, but need a valid US / International Drivers license and a Credit Card :-) Best option will be to open a secured credit card and start building your credit. When your wife and family arrives, they also will be assigned individual SSN and can start building their credit history themselves. Please keep in mind that Credit Score and Credit History is always individual here...

negative: Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules.

negative: "The decision as to what counts as income is up to the bank. You'll need to ask them whether or not rental income can be included in the total. I can offer some anecdotal evidence: when I applied for a mortgage to buy my home, I already had a rental property with a buy-to-let mortgage on it. Initially the bank regarded that property as a liability, not an asset, because it was mortgaged! However, once I was able to show that there was a good history of receiving enough rent, they chose to ignore the property altogether -- i.e. it wasn't regarded as a liability, but it wasn't regarded as a source of income either. More generally, as AakashM says, residential mortgages are computed based on affordability, which is more than just a multiple of your salary. To answer your specific questions: Covered above; it's up to the bank. If you're married, and you don't have a written tenancy agreement, and you're not declaring the ""rent"" on your tax return, then it seems unlikely that this would be regarded as income at all. Conversely, if your partner is earning, why not put their name on the mortgage application too? Buy-to-let mortgages are treated differently. While it used to be the case that they were assessed on rental income only, nowadays lenders may ask for proof of the landlord's income from other sources. Note that a BTL cannot be used for a property you intend to live in, and a residential mortgage cannot be used for a property you intend to let to tenants -- at least, not without the bank's permission."

negative: The financial reasons, beyond simply owning your home outright, are: You're no longer paying interest. Yes, the interest is tax-deductible in the U.S. (though not in Canada), but the tax savings is a percentage of a percentage; if you paid, say, $8000 in interest last year, at the 25% marginal rate you effectively save $2000 off your taxes. But, if you paid off your home and had that $8000 in your pocket, you'd pay the $2000 in taxes but you'd have $6000 left over. Which is the better deal? In Canada, the decision gets even easier; you pay taxes on the interest money either way, so you're either spending the $8000 in interest, lost forever as cost of capital, or on other things. Whatever you're earning is going into your own pocket, not the bank's. Similar to the interest, but also including principal, a home you own outright is a mortgage payment you don't have to make. You can now use that money, principal and interest, for other things. Whether these advantages outweigh those of anything else you could do with a few hundred grand depends primarily on the rate of return. If you got in at the bottom of the mortgage crisis (which is pretty much right now) and got a rate in the 3-4% range, with no MIP or other payment on top, then almost anything you can do with the amount you'd need to pay off a mortgage principal would get you a better rate of return. However, you'll need some market savvy to avoid risks.  In most cases when someone has pretty much any debt and a big wad of cash they're considering how to spend, I usually recommend paying off the debt, because that is, in effect, a risk-free way to increase the net rate of return on your total wealth and income. Balancing debt with investments always carries with it the risk that the investment will fail, leaving you stuck with the debt. Paying the debt on the other hand will guarantee that you don't have to pay interest on that outstanding amount anymore, so it's no longer offsetting whatever gains you are making in the market on your savings or future investments.

negative: There is no situation one can imagine in which the US defaults (beyond a day or three) on its obligations. The treasury can print money, and while it would be disastrous, 'monetizing' the debt would simply eliminate all outstanding debt at the risk of devaluing the dollar to hyperinflation levels.

negative: "In the Netherlands specifically, there are several reasons to pay extra off on your mortgage. First, house prices have dropped significantly in the last several years.  They are rising slowly now, but it's region specific and you can still borrow more than 100% of the price of the house.  Under these conditions, if you choose to sell your house and the outstanding mortgage amount is greater than the value of your house, you are left with a gap (restschuld) to finance.  I think the rules have changed recently around this, allowing you to finance this gap with a new mortgage, but this is not a good idea.  The tax implications of this are likely to be complicated in the long run and your new house may not cover this gap for some time. Second, the less you owe on your house, the lower mortgage rates you can get.  Mortgages in the Netherlands usually fall into categories based on percentage of the auction price at a foreclosure sale (executiewaarde).  If you pay more of your mortgage off, you may qualify for a lower interest rate, possibly making refinancing interesting.  This is especially important if interest rates continue to drop but the value of your house does not increase or even decreases. Third, if you choose to keep your house and rent it out, the banks in the Netherlands have very strict rules on this if you want to do it above board.  I've read that some banks require the mortgage amount (NB not the value you may have built up in a linked savings or insurance account) to be less than 50% of the foreclosure auction price (executiewaarde).  Also, related to point 2, if you have something other than a linear or annuity mortgage, you will need to refinance to do this as the tax advantages around savings mortgages ([bank]spaarhypotheken) do not apply if it is not used as your own residence. Finally, if you choose to sell and you are in the happy position of having the value of your house be greater than the value of your mortgage (you have an overwaarde), there may still be some obstacles.  Any value you have accumulated in a linked savings or life insurance account is not available until after you sell your house.  Extra value derived purely from the difference between mortgage value and sale price may be easier to deal with. EDIT: As a final note, I've made extra payments on both a ""Spaarhypotheek"" (linked life insurance) and a ""Bankspaarhypotheek"" (linked savings account).  In one, the principal paid each month reduced and the mortgage lifetime stayed the same.  In the other, the principal paid each month stayed the same and the lifetime reduced.  In both cases, interest payments were less each month.  I would contact your mortgage provider to understand what the expected impact of extra payments will be."

negative: "After the initial public offering, the company can raise money by selling more stock (equity financing) or selling debt (e.g. borrowing money).  If a company's stock price is high, they can raise money with equity financing on more favorable terms.  When companies raise money with equity financing, they create new shares and dilute the existing shareholders, so the number of shares outstanding is not fixed. Companies can also return money to shareholders by buying their own equity, and this is called a share repurchase.  It's best for companies to repurchase their shared when their stock price is low, but ""American companies have a terrible track record of buying their own shares high and selling them low."" The management of a company typically likes a rising stock price, so their stock options are more valuable and they can justify bigger pay packages."

negative: The debt doesn't have to and never should be paid off.  The fed could print $20T tomorrow and swap all outstanding US govt debt for cash and it would be net neutral in terms of financial assets outstanding.    The result would be a massive removal of income paying assets, and near total loss of control and influence over interest rates however.

negative: "Whether or not PayPal itself reports to the credit bureaus, the collector **will**.  That said, you can demand the collector ""validate"" the debt, which if you were scammed could make for an interesting scenario - PayPal *doesn't* normally play the role of a creditor, so the very fact that you ""owe"" them money is an unusual situation in and of itself.  I'm not entirely sure how they would go about validating that debt - They haven't provided you any goods or services, you don't have any form of loan outstanding with them... The legitimacy of the ""debt"" consists **entirely** of them siding with the other party in a he-said-she-said dispute.  I'd be interested to hear what the collector replies with when you demand validation of the debt!"

negative: There is no interest outstanding, per se.  There is only principal outstanding.  Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis.  The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed.  What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding.  If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set.  The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years.  If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years.  The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed.  Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years.  How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan.  If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years.  It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less.  Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens.  If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan.   If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month.  In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!!  This is called negative amortization.  Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment.  You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments.  If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan.  Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by.  For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding).  Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments.  They don't have to be fixed.   For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year.   Is the math any different?  Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis.  Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal.  You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning!  That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan.  All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about   prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car   loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you   are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty.   If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the   16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to   the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of   the loan. Incorrect.  It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!!  It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay   off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received   all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute   the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in   effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding   that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the   balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff   amount. Your last sentence is correct.  The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe.  In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year   loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount.  If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see.  In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car   loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to   the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car   loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was   crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan.   I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying.  I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion.   The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet.  If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan.

negative: You're halfway done with the debt elimination.  Keep up the good work. The student loan debt will get in your way a couple of ways when you look to finance a house.  First, your debt to income ratio will be higher than without the debt, so you'll be able to qualify for a smaller loan with the debt than without.  Second, you'll have the student loan payments in addition to your mortgage.  This may wear on you. I'd look for ways to make extra money to knock out those student loan debts ASAP.  The rates aren't horrible.  That, and I think there is still some time before the housing market bottoms out, so you don't need to rush into the house. If you can handle the entire debt load (student loans + mortgage) then if you save up for the down payment, that money isn't being used to pay down your student loans, and paying your students loans off won't get any easier when you get a mortgage on top of that.

negative: "The statistic you cited comes from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances, a survey that they do every three years, most recently in 2013.  This was reported in the September 2014 issue of the Federal Reserve Bulletin.  They list the percentage of Americans with any type of debt as 74.5 in 2013, down slightly from 74.9 in 2010. The Bulletin also has a table with a breakdown of the types of debt that people have, and primary residence mortgages are at the top of the list.  So the answer is yes, the 75% statistic includes Americans with home mortgages.* The bigger question is, are you really ""in debt"" if you have a home mortgage?  The answer to that is also yes.  When you take out a mortgage, you really do own the house.  You decide who lives there, you decide what changes you are going to make to it, and you are responsible for the upkeep.  But the mortgage debt you have is secured by the house.  This means that if you refuse to pay, the bank is allowed to take possession of the house.  They don't even get the ""whole"" house, though; they will sell it to recoup their losses, and give you back whatever equity you had in the house after the loan is satisfied. Is it good debt?  Many people think that if you are borrowing money to purchase an appreciating asset, the debt is acceptable.  With this definition, a car loan is bad, credit card debt is very bad, and a home mortgage might be okay.  Even Dave Ramsey, radio host and champion of the debt-free lifestyle, is not opposed to home mortgages.  Home mortgages allow people to purchase a home that they would otherwise be unable to afford. * Interestingly, according to the bulletin appendix, credit card balances were only included as debt for the survey purposes if there was a balance after the most recent bill was paid, not including purchases made after the bill.  So people that do not carry a balance on their credit card were not considered ""in debt"" in this statistic."

negative: You should have drafted a contract of purchase that stipulated out equity stake in the home based of his down payment and yours, along with future monthly payments.  But morally, if the house sells, yielding 100,000 profit (after fees/taxes/etc), you should get ( To Calculate Your Cut: (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) / (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = Your Cut His would be: (1,900 + His Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle Only) / (20,000 + Your Total Mortgage Payments Applied to Principle) * Profit on Sale of House After All Fees = His Cut You'd then take mortgage payment totals for each; and calculate the payments made towards interest; and claim the correct amount each of you paid on payments for the mortgage interest deduction when you file your taxes. Although, depending on how the loan is written, the banks may issue 1099s which dont reflect actual payments made... Talk to an accountant.

negative: "Term is the way to go. Whole/universal are basically a combo of term and savings, so buy term life insurance and invest the difference in cost yourself. You should make a lot more that way (as far as savings go) than by buying whole life. By the time term life gets too expensive to be worth (when you're a lot older) you will have enough saved to become ""self-insured"". Just don't touch the savings :) You really only need insurance when there is income to replace and debts to cover - house/mortgage, kids/school, job income, etc."

negative: Rich people use debt for various reasons. The question should not assume that billionaires don't use debt. They also pay lower interest rates on that debt because they have enough collateral that their debt is safer than a typical mortgage. Many rich people will use interest only mortgages on their primary residences so that they can keep their stock earning at higher growth rates than the mortgage interest that they are paying all while writing off a portion of that mortgage interest on their taxes.  Taking an artificially low salary and receiving equity for the larger portion of compensation is also a tax strategy to limit the amount of taxes owed on that income. If paid directly in stock grants, that will count as income, but if paid in options, then the purchased stock will only be taxed at the lower capital gains rates if the stock is held for a year after the options are exercised. Every billionaire will have complicated tax avoidance strategies that will require multi-year planning for the best long-term minimization of taxes. Debt is a strategic part of that planning. Also consider that a major part of that upscale lifestyle (corporate jets, fancy meals, etc.) is on the company dime because the CEO is always on the clock. As long as he is meeting with business prospects or doing other company business, those expenses will be justified for the corporation and not attributed as income.

negative: "Generally it is not recommended that you do anything potentially short-term deleterious to your credit during the process of seeking a mortgage loan - such as opening a new account, closing old accounts, running up balances, or otherwise applying for any kind of loan (people often get carried away and apply for loans to cover furniture and appliances for the new home they haven't bought yet). You are usually OK to do things that have at least a short-term positive effect, like paying down debt. But refinancing - which would require applying for a non-home loan - is exactly the sort of hard-pull that can drop your credit rating. It is not generally advised. The exception to this is would be if you have an especially unusual situation with an existing loan (like your car), that is causing a deal-breaking situation with your home loan. This would for example be having a car payment so high that it violates maximum Debt-to-Income ratios (DTI). If your monthly debt payments are more than 43% of your monthly income, for instance, you will generally be unable to obtain a ""qualified mortgage"", and over 28-36% will disqualify you from some lenders and low-cost mortgage options. The reason this is unusual is that you would have to have a bizarrely terrible existing loan, which could somehow be refinanced without increasing your debt while simultaneously providing a monthly savings so dramatic that it would shift your DTI from ""unacceptable"" to ""acceptable"". It's possible, but most simple consumer loan refis just don't give that kind of savings. In most cases you should just ""sit tight"" and avoid any new loans or refinances while you seek a home purchase. If you want to be sure, you'll need to figure out your DTI ratio (which I recommend anyway) and see where you would be before and after a car refinance. If this would produce a big swing, maybe talk with some mortgage loan professionals who are familiar with lending criteria and ask for their opinion as to whether the change would be worth it. 9 times out of 10, you should wait until after your loan is closed and the home is yours before you try to refinance your car. However I would only warn you that if you think your house + car payment is too much for you to comfortably afford, I'd strongly recommend you seriously reconsider your budget, current car ownership, and house purchasing plans. You might find that after the house purchase the car refi isn't available either, or fine print means it wouldn't provide the savings you thought it would. Don't buy now hoping an uncertain cost-saving measure will work out later."

negative: Think carefully about the added expenses.  It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking.  In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically.  Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer.  When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building.  You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense.  You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building.  Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years).  You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building.  This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year.  Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right.

negative: littleadv's answer gives a concise summary of the system as it stands now, but much more changed than just the portion of the mandatory contribution that was diverted to the private plan. In broad terms, the balances of your accounts and your future benefit won't change. It's only the source of these benefits that's changing. The Bloomberg article describes the changes this way: The state will take over the amount of bonds that pension funds held as of end of Sept. 3 and turn them into pension liabilities in the state-run social security system... The state will assume control of 51.5 percent of pension-fund assets, including bonds guaranteed by the government and “other non-stock assets” After the change, Polish workers that held bonds in the private portion of their retirement portfolios will instead have more payments from the state-run pension system. The balances of your retirement portfolio and your future benefits shouldn't change, but the reality may depend on how the state pension system is managed and any future changes the government implements. The effect this change will have on future benefits isn't clear, because the change may simply delay the problem of high levels of outstanding sovereign debt, not solve it. The government stated that because increasing numbers of workers invested their money in private pension funds, less money went into the government's fund, which forced them to issue sovereign debt in order to cover the shortfall in their current pension liabilities.  The government's recent cancellation of government bonds in the hands of private pensions will decrease their overall outstanding debt, but in exchange, the government is increasing its future pension liabilities. Years down the road, the government may find that they need to issue more sovereign debt to cover the increased pension liabilities they're taking on today. In other words, they may find themselves back in the same situation years down the road, and it's difficult to predict what changes they might make at that time.

negative: I think the first step is to be thankful that your relationship with this person has not degenerated into lawsuits and bickering.  That would greatly affect your cash flow and valuations!  It also seems that this person is open to a variety of solutions.  This truly is a gift. I see two options without taking a mortgage or fronting cash: The key here is if the 65% property already has a mortgage.  Does it have enough equity to provide 15% cash out, and cover the existing mortgage?  What is the interest rate?  Can you get a lower rate that will reduce the impact of a higher mortgage payment will have on your income?  Can you have your partner finance the 15%?   In the end there really isn't a way to divest this company without impacting your income.


query: Is this follow-up after a car crash a potential scam?

positive: "Do not give them any money until you have a signed contract that releases your liability completely. It's imperative that this contract be drafted correctly. The contract needs proper consideration (money in exchange for release of liability), among other things. In other words, talk to a lawyer if you want to go this route. If you just cut them a check, there's nothing stopping them from taking your money and making an insurance claim anyway, or taking your money and then suing for ""whiplash"" or some other fake injury.  The best way is just to go through insurance. It might cost a bit more, but you're covered in case they sue."

positive: "You have to realize that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You want to do things ""unofficially"" by not reporting the accident (to insurance companies and/or police), but you want to do it ""officially"" in that you want to have legal recourse if they try to hit you up for more money.  The only way to have it both ways is to trust the other person. From a financial perspective, ultimately you need to decide if the monetary cost of your raised insurance premiums, etc., outweighs the cost of whatever money the other party in the accident will try to squeeze out of you (factoring in the likelihood that they will do so).  You also would need to factor in the likelihood that, rather than trying to scam you, they'll pursue legal action against you. In short, from a purely monetary perspective, if the legitimate cost of repairs is $700 and the cost to you of doing it by the book via insurance is $2000, you should be willing to be scammed for up to $1300, because you'll still come out ahead.  Of course, there are psychological considerations, like whether someone unscrupulous enough to scam you will stop at $1300.  But those numbers are the baseline for whatever outcome calculations you want to do. On the more qualitative side of things, it is possible they're trying to scam you, but also possible they're just trying to hustle you into doing everything quickly without thinking about it.  They may not be trying to gouge you monetarily, they just want to pressure you so they get their money.  I agree with other answerers here that the ideal way would be for them to send you an actual bill after repairs are complete.  However, you could ask them to send you a written copy of the repair shop estimate, along with a written letter in which they state that they will consider payment of that amount to resolve the issue and won't pursue you further.  The legal strength of that is dubious, but at least you have some documentation that you didn't just try to stiff them.  If they won't give you some form of written documentation, I would read that as a red flag, bite the bullet, and contact your insurance company."

positive: You wouldn't pay what the quote says, you would pay what the bill says. If the car is used as a taxi then either it's done illegally and not your problem, or they have proper insurance. One reason to go through your insurance is that they know how to handle all these things for you.  If you have only their phone number: You owe them money, so they will contact you.

positive: "I would write them a check or give them cash money. There are payment receipt forms available online, you can print one of have them fill it out and sign it. Just google ""private party receipt"".  Money transfer (via bank account or Paypal) is also an option, but in my opinion it's more convenient to meet up and handle it in person. If you want, you can have them meet you at a notary public's office (your local bank branch should have one) and have the receipt notarized. I don't think it's a scam, but make sure you are paying the right person."

negative: > Regulators are questioning the safety of bus travel after 28 people died in eight crashes this year.  OK, how many died in car crashes last year. I'd bet my life it was a lot more than 28. I'm guessing the airlines told the NTSB regulators to take a closer look at their competition.

negative: Pseudo scientific bullflop.  Notice a lot of the expenses are for catalytic conversion.  This whole article assumes the rise of the electric car, which will cease when true competition arises after Trump kills the welfare scam of the hybrid car cash give away credit .    If a hybrid car is the clear victor off the battle with oil then it will survive without the generous government subsidy.  But they can't, so they won't.

negative: Why is that acceptable? That's just bad math. Currently, autopilot for cars isn't fleshed out yet. Humans cumulatively have 1 crash every 470 million miles, while Tesla's autopilot has 1 crash for every 220 million miles, but that's with the old hardware, with one forward camera. the new hardware suite has 8 cameras, along with all the other radar/sonar sensors. It's yet to be turned on. If that system proves to have 1 crash every half billion miles, then the car is safer than human driving. If it reaches 1 crash per billion miles, then it's kind of a no-brainer.   When you get in a taxi, bus, or airplane, you're still putting your life in the hands of something that's not under your control. You just trust that they have a good safety record and let them drive you. Driverless cars will be the same way. Nothing will ever be 100% safe, ever. That's just not possible. A sinkhole can open up under the car at any moment. A meteor could hit the car. No matter what, something will be able to beat the system and cause a fatality, but the goal is to minimize fatalities, not eliminate them all together. 100% will never happen.

negative: Even after the real estate crash, there are banks that lend money outside of the rules I'll share.  A fully qualified mortgage is typically run at debt to income ratios of 28/36, where 28% of your gross monthly income can apply to the mortgage, property tax, and insurance, and the 36% is the total monthly debt (including the mortgage, etc) plus car loan student loan, etc. It's less about the total loan on the potential than about these ratios. The bank may allow for 75% of monthly rent so until rentals are running at a profit, they may seem a loss, even while just breaking even.  This is just an overview, each bank may vary a bit.

negative: While debt increases the likelihood and magnitude of a crash, speculation, excess supply and other market factors can result in crashes without requiring excessive debt. A popular counter example of crashes due to speculation is 16th century Dutch Tulip Mania.  The dot com bubble is a more recent example of a speculative crash. There were debt related issues for some companies and the run ups in stock prices were increased by leveraged traders, but the actual crash was the result of failures of start up companies to produce profits. While all tech stocks fell together, sound companies with products and profits survive today. As for recessions, they are simply periods of time with decreased economic activity. Recessions can be caused by financial crashes, decreased demand following a war, or supply shocks like the oil crisis in the 1970's. In summary, debt is simply a magnifier. It can increase profits just as easily as can increase losses. The real problems with crashes and recessions are often related to unfounded faith in increasing value and unexpected changes in demand.

negative: This is not hypothetical, this is an accurate story. I am a long-term investor. I have a bunch of money that I'd like to invest and I plan on spreading it out over five or six mutual funds and ETFs, roughly according to the Canadian Couch Potato model portfolio (that is, passive mutual funds and ETFs rather than specific stocks). I am concerned that if I invest the full amount and the stock market crashes 30% next month, I will have paid more than I had to. As I am investing for the long term, I expect to more than regain my investment, but I still wouldn't be thrilled with paying 30% more than I had to. Instead, I am investing my money in three stages. I invested the first third earlier this month. I'll invest the next third in a few months, and the final third a few months after that. If the stock market climbs, as I expect is more likely the case, I will have lost out on some potential upside. However, if the stock market crashes next month, I will end up paying a lower average cost as two of my three purchases will occur after the crash. On average, as a long-term investor, I expect the stock market to go up. In the short term, I expect much more fluctuation. Statistically speaking, I'd do better to invest all the money at once as most of the time, the trend is upward. However, I am willing to trade some potential upside for a somewhat reduced risk of downside over the course of the next few months. If we were talking a price difference of 1% as mentioned in the question, I wouldn't care. I expect to see average annual returns far above this. But stock market crashes can cause the loss of 20 to 30% or more, and those are numbers I care about. I'd much rather buy in at 30% less than the current price, after all.

negative: Keyless entry and stereo are the only items that come to mind on that list as having after-market potential. If you buy a used car, seat could be an option, but you would probably give up power controls and things like heating unless you are a real car guy. In general, if you're buying a new car, I think it makes sense to negotiate as much as possible during the sale. Accessories are always high margin, and you have leverage when you're buying the car. If you want fancy aftermarket stuff, you probably want to buy a nice, clean used car and fund your aftermarket stuff with the savings!

negative: $15 being how much it costs to drive a car about 10 miles, and does not account for a driver's time.  Hilarious shit, from the biggest payday loan scam the planet has ever seen. Because Uber is nothing but a scam where you work your ass off, to steal money from your future self, and give 25% of it to Uber!  But if you think 6 cents a mile is a decent wage for a cab driver (which is what you can make, if you are lucky), then by all means, please sign up!

negative: I believe one of the main reasons cars -- luxury or otherwise -- depreciate so quickly is that many auto accidents can cause serious engine/frame damage but are easily cosmetically repaired.  If you smash up the car but get the body fixed, and you don't go through insurance, it will be indistinguishable from the same car that hasn't been in a crash.

negative: "Generally, yes.  Rather than ask, ""why are these guys so cheap?"", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. ""Safeness"" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under ""Security"". Funds in ""cash"" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model. That said, there could well be a new company that offers services or prices that fit your investment need, and in that case definitely look into their registrations and third-party reviews. Finally, note that the smaller, independent brokerages will probably have stiffer margin rules. If you're playing a complex, novel, and/or high-risk strategy that can't handle the volatility of a market crash, even a short excursion such as the 2010 flash crash, stiff margin rules might have consequences that a novice investor would rather pretend didn't exist."

negative: I've been short the Euro for several months now against the USD (could be various others as well). I got in at 1.42, sold on a bounce up to 1.36, bought back at 1.38 and now will probably ride it out lower.   Regardless of whether or not the Eurozone breaks up, I see it breaking through the 1.30 mark in the near-term. After that, I'm not sure how low it goes, but there is certainly potential for it to head towards 1/1. In order to reduce the burden, the ECB needs to devalue the currency.   Although Germany really doesn't want this due to their anti-inflationary ideology, if Italy comes crashing down, so does France. When France goes, Germany goes into a deep recession if not a depression. They have to devalue some.  As for a collapse, I have no idea. It probably depends on how many (if any) countries retain the currency and who they are.

negative: "Ill give you two bits of advice...  1. Word of mouth is the best marketing tool for this particular business. That's because people dont get excited about plumbing, rather they only need it when they have a problem.  Providing the best customer service and following up months after your service was completed (letters, personalized e-mails, gifts, etc), will make your customers refer others.  3. Make sure your website is SEO friendly. When people need plumbing done, they will often do a google search as follows: ""Plumbing (Town, State)"", Let me know if you want to learn more about SEO and ill give you a few resources. Although it is an effective marketing technique it is also very easy to get scammed by so called ""SEO Professionals""."

negative: "I love it - it was the policies under Bush (as much as one can squarely place blame on the president) that results in the crash that nearly destroyed him - the same president he claims he got elected... and yet here were are and he is claiming if Obama is re-elected that he might have to fire people because of his policies (as much as he claims we can squarely place blame on the president) would lead to another loss for his company, that is after they enjoyed this period of recovery that allows him to continue building his massive house o' opulence.   Wonderful business sense, ""Pay more in taxes?? FUCK those profits altogether! I'll shut down the company and HA HA! That'll show them! Because no one else will swoop in and pick up my massively profitable vacation scam business... you know why? Because taxes - that's why! And socialism! and communism!.... COMMULISM!"""

negative: I tend to agree with Rocky's answer.  However it sounds like you want to look at this from the numbers side of things.  So let's consider some numbers: I'm assuming you have the money to buy the new car available as cash in hand, and that if you don't buy the car, you'll invest it reasonably.  So if you buy the new car today, you're $17K out of pocket.  Let's look at some scenarios and compare.  Assuming: If you buy the new car today, then after 1 year you'll have: If you keep the old car, after 1 year you get: After 2 years, you have: And after 3 years, you're at: Or in other words, nothing depletes the value of your assets faster than buying the new car. After 1 year, you've essentially lost $5K to depreciation.    However, over the short term the immediate cost of the tires combined with the continued depreciation of the old car do reduce your purchasing power somewhat (you won't be able to muster $25K towards a new car without chipping in a bit of extra cash), and inflation will tend to drive the cost of the new car up as time goes on.  So the relative gap between the value of your assets and the cost of the new car tends to increase, though it stays well below the $5k that you lose to depreciation if you buy the new car immediately.  Which is something that you could potentially spin to support whichever side you prefer, I suppose. Though note that I've made some fairly pessimistic assumptions.  In particular, the current U.S. inflation rate is under 1%, and a new car may depreciate by as much as 25% in the first year while older cars may depreciate by less than the 8% assumed.  And I selected the cheapest new car price cited, and didn't credit the tires with adding any value to your old car.  Each of those aspects tends to make continuing to drive the older car a better option than buying the new one.

negative: You need a mixture of real estate, funds, and cash in the bank. Putting all your eggs in one basket is never wise.  I would also stay away from land-banking period... Like you had mentioned, scam after scam after scam... Here in Tokyo, Royal Siam Trust (White Sands Beach?) is the token land-banking scam... funny enough it was hosted by the OP...

negative: Stock market Tends to follow the DJIA and FTSE, so unlikely to see an Australia-only crash, especially while resources are doing so well. If China's growth slows before other ailing sectors improve, a downturn becomes more likely and the potential severity of the downturn increases. Economy A huge question to which I would refer you to Steve Keen: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ See A Fork in the Road. Housing Market It's a bubble, stupid! Seriously, it's as though the Aussies waited for the US to get done and then simply borrowed the copy book. There are a multitude of articles out there about likely outcomes from where the housing market is and where it's going. See this for a sample of what's out there: http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/26/aussie-housing-bubble-gets-popped-with-chinese-credit-crash/ Note: All three of the areas you raise - economy, stock mkt, housing - are so intertwined that it's tricky separating them out. A lot of reading on Steve Keen's site can help.

negative: "This refers to the faulty idea that the stock market will behave differently than it has in the past.  For example, in the late 1990s, internet stocks rose to ridiculous heights in price, to be followed soon after with the Dot-Com Bubble crash. In the future, it's likely that there will be another such bubble with another hot stock - we just don't know what kind.  Saying that ""this time it will be different"" could mean that you expect this bubble not to burst when, historically, that is never the case."

negative: As a car guy, I would question the wisdom of putting in a new (read - usually reman) engine into an 8yo car. Unless the engine is known to have longevity issues, I'd try to find a good used one, say from a crashed car, and swap that in. The labor part is going to be roughly the same obviously but if the cost of the engine halves, you might still end up with cash in your pocket. This mainly works if the cost of the engine is substantially higher than the labour, if it's the other way round get a new/reman engine with a warranty.

negative: Smart cars are highway legal and pass crash test safety standards.  Making them much more expensive than they need to be.  And yeah, they suck to drive because they're under powered for their weight.  There are much better alternatives.  [For example all of these cars are illegal, or regulated out of usefulness, in the US.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car) And they're the prime size of vehicle for commuter electric cars right now.  However, they would never pass a crash test at highway speeds.  There's a similar class of cars in India and Europe, I just happen to like the Kei trucks myself.

negative: If you believe you can time the crash, then  We all know what comes after a crash… just as we know what comes after the doom, we just don’t know when….

negative: One more thing to consider is fleet upgrading.   Let's say an individual person drives in the rain and finds out that set of circumstances causes the car to fishtail and crash. Now that one person knows that lesson. Nobody else benefits from that new knowledge. That one guy will be super careful next time it rains and he drives into a curve or whatever, but the next guy doesn't know better, so he may make the same mistake as the first driver.  When the computer AI crashes the car, the company pours over the crash data. The software is tweaked to learn to avoid that kind of accident, and that updated software is pushed to the whole fleet. Now every car that gets that update is a little bit better of a driver. Over the months and years, it will get better and better.

negative: "And now it is at about $3. Many times ""skeletons"" are bought and inflated for various reasons. Some are legitimate (for example a private business merging into a defunct but public corporation to avoid wasting resources on going public), some are not (mainly pump-and-dump scams that are using ""skeletons""). I don't know what was the case here (probably speculation based on the new marijuana laws in the US), but clearly the inflated price was completely unjustified since it went crashing down."

negative: "It's a very simple equation. If we forget about the stress and limitations that come with the so-called ""lease"", and make the following assumptions: Then after 3 years of using this new car: I will never understand why people still ""lease"" a car. Even for very low income people who have to have a car, financing a per-owned decent car would do, but it's just ""show off"" seduction and lure that either unknowing minded or idiot teenagers fall for."

negative: So i made a price comparison video about world ventures to prove that their deals are actually beneficial and that this company is not a scam... The general idea on reddit is that this company is a scam. What are your thoughts after watching this video?

negative: That's because the wealthy are paid for every engine stroke, and they know the car is almost out of fuel, and is heading for a cliff.  So they are making plans to bail while collecting as many resources from the car's operation before it's inevitable crash.

negative: Although it is impossible to predict the next stock market crash, what   are some signs or measures that indicate the economy is unstable? These questions are really two sides of the same coin.  As such, there's really no way to tell, at least not with any amount of accuracy that would allow you time the market. Instead, follow the advice of William Bernstein regarding long-term investments.  I'm paraphrasing, but the gist is: Markets crash every so often.  It's a fact of life.  If you maintain financial and investment discipline, you can take advantage of the crashes by having sufficient funds to purchase when stocks are on sale.  With a long-term investment horizon, crashes are actually a blessing since you're in prime position to profit from them.

negative: You're eligible to do whatever you please, regardless of what you owe as long as you're in a payment plan approved by the IRS which you follow religiously.  That said, let me incorporate some of the comments, as they're important: ChrisInEdmonton said: Note that almost all such 'opportunities' are scams. In order to   provide a complete answer, you'll need to explain the terms of your   installment agreement with the IRS. Also, just curious. If you have   the money to start up a business, why aren't you using it to pay back   the money you owe John Bensin added: I strongly recommend you read through a few links on work-at-home   scams, e.g. fraud.org, forbes, Wikipedia, and the FTC   before joining something like this, to be safe

negative: Depends on what measures were taken. *If* they followed standard best practices and were hacked, then would you still want them put out of business? Should airlines fold if one of their planes crashes?  Now if they were negligent, that's another story. You can read my other comment down the thread but shutting down Equifax is only going to hurt innocent people who had no say in the matter. Personally I don't think that is going to do the most good after the fact.

negative: "For a car, you're typically compelled to carry insurance, and picking up ""comprehensive"" coverage (fire, theft, act of god) is normally cheap. If the car was purchased with a loan, the lender will stipulate that you carry comprehensive and collision insurance.  People buy insurance because it limits their liability. In the grand scheme of things, pricing in a fixed rate of loss every year (insurance premium + potential deductible) is appealing to many versus having to cover a catastrophic loss when your car is wrecked or stolen."

negative: Tesla is currently unmatched in the industry for leveraging the software and built in communications on their vehicles. Other manufacturers talk the same game, but I've yet to see anyone else rev their software with feature updates like Tesla. I wish the others would step up their game.   I hope they are the first to implement car following. Then every time an owner brings in an ICE car to service, it becomes an ad for Tesla as the owner drops off the ICE vehicle, then steps into the Tesla that silently followed them to the mechanic's.

negative: Sweden just recapitalized and fired the bankers. They are fine and were fine just a few years after their crash. Now the US has an out of control bail out culture mixed with the worst, most dishonest business men in history running the show. This will end up way worse than last time.

negative: I don't think you understand what it's saying, not that there were only 8 crashes, that in 8 crashes 28 people died.  It's talking about the amount of fatalities/crash for those 8 crashes, which is why the sentence after that talks about curbside operators being more dangerous.  There were more than 8 crashes among all the different bus lines in a year.