query: Pros/cons of borrowing money using a mortgage loan and investing it in a low-fee index fund?

positive: Risk is the problem, as others have pointed out. Your fixed mortgage interest rate is for a set period of time only. Let's say your 3% might be good for five years, because that's typical of fixed-rate mortages in Canada. So, what happens in five years if your investment has dropped 50% due to a prolonged bear market, and interest rates have since moved up from 3% to 8%? Your investment would be underwater, and you wouldn't have enough to pay off the loan and exit the failed strategy. Rather, you might just be stuck with renewing the mortage at a rate that makes the strategy far less attractive, being more likely to lose money in the long run than to earn any. Leverage, or borrowing to invest, amplifies your risk considerably. If you invest your own money in the market, you might lose what you started with, but if you borrow to invest, you might lose much more than you started with. There's also one very specific issue with the example investment you've proposed: You would be borrowing Canadian dollars but investing in an index fund of U.S.-based companies that trade in U.S. dollars. Even if the index has positive returns in U.S. dollar terms, you might end up losing money if the Canadian dollar strengthens vs. the U.S. dollar. It has happened before, multiple times. So, while this strategy has worked wonderfully in the past, it has also failed disastrously in the past. Unless you have a crystal ball, you need to be aware of the various risks and weigh them vs. the potential rewards. There is no free lunch.

positive: Well for a start funds don't pay interest.  If you pick an income-paying fund (as opposed to one that automatically reinvests any income for you) you will receive periodic income based on the dividends paid by the underlying stocks, but it won't be the steady predictable interest payment you might get from a savings account or fixed-rate security. This income is not guaranteed and will vary based on the performance of the companies making up the fund. It's also quite likely that the income by itself won't cover the interest on your mortgage.  The gains from stock market investment come from a mixture of dividends and capital growth (i.e. the increase in the price of the shares).  So you may have to sell units now and again or cover part of the interest payments from other income. You're basically betting that the after-tax returns from the fund will be greater than the mortgage interest rate you're paying.   3 facts: If you're comfortable with these 3 facts, go for it. If they're going to keep you awake at night, you might not want to take the risk.

positive: Risk.  That's it.  No guarantees on the fund performance, while the mortgage has a guaranteed return of -3%.  I'm doing this very thing.  Money is cheap, I think it's wise to take advantage of it, assuming your exercise proper risk management.

positive: Something very similar to this was extremely popular in the UK in the late 1980s.  The practice has completely vanished since the early 2000s.  Reading up on the UK endowment mortgage scandals will probably give you an excellent insight into whether you should attempt your plan. Endowment mortgages were provided by banks and at their peak were probably the most popular mortgage form.  The basic idea was that you only pay the interest on your mortgage and invest a small amount each month into a low fee endowment policy.  Many endowment policies were simply index tracking, and the idea being that by the end of your mortgage you would have built up a portfolio sufficient to pay off your mortgage, and may well have extra left over. In the late 1990s the combination of falling housing market and poor stock performance meant that many people were left with both the endowment less than their mortgage and their house in negative equity.

positive: Essentially, what you're describing is a leveraged investment.  As others noted, the question is how confident you can be that (a) the returns on the investment will exceed what you're paying in interest, and (b) that if you lose the bet you'll still be able to pay off the loan without severely injuring yourself.  I did essentially this when I bought my house, taking out a larger loan than necessary and leaving more money in my investments, which had been returning more than the mortgage's interest rate. I then got indecently lucky during the recession and was able to refinance down to under 4%, which I am very certain my investment will beat. I actually considered lengthening the term of the loan for that reason, or borrowing a bit more, but decided not to double down on the bet; that was my own risk-comfort threshold. Know exactly what your risks are, including secondary effects of these risks. Run the numbers to see what the likely return is. Decide whether you like the odds enough to go for it.

negative: This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged).

negative: "Most mutual funds are designed to make the investment banks that sell them money, not to make investers money. They do this by taking significant fees out. Because they make lots of money on these funds, they advertise them a lot, and give them important-sounding names, like ""Advanced technology global diversity long term appreciation"".  Index funds are the exception; they attempt to mirror the performance of a specific index (such as the S&P 500 index). They generally have very low fees."

negative: The loan is private, so the business is more of a red-herring. The fact that you're closing it and lost a lot of money explains the loan, but is rather irrelevant otherwise as the loan is personal. Do consider potential tax benefits on writing off a loss, talk to a local tax adviser on that. Pros: Cons: I'm sure there are more considerations, of course, and I'm not familiar with the Canadian social safety nets to understand how much of a damage con #1 would be.

negative: Why would it not make more sense to invest in a handful of these   heavyweights instead of also having to carry the weight of the other   450 (some of which are mostly just baggage)? First, a cap-weighted index fund will invest more heavily in larger cap companies, so the 'baggage' you speak of does take up a smaller percentage of the portfolio's value (not that cap always equates to better performance). There are also equal-weighted index funds where each company in the index is given equal weight in the portfolio. If you could accurately pick winners and losers, then of course you could beat index funds, but on average they've performed well enough that there's little incentive for the average investor to look elsewhere.  A handful of stocks opens you up to more risk, an Enron in your handful would be pretty devastating if it comprised a large percentage of your portfolio. Additionally, since you pay a fee on each transaction ($5 in your example), you have to out-perform a low-fee index fund significantly, or be investing a very large amount of money to come out ahead. You get diversification and low-fees with an index fund.

negative: Ok. I'll ask - Does the job offer a 401(k)? Matching deposits? You see, the answers given depend on your risk tolerance. There are two schools of thought, one extreme will tell you not to start investing until you have the emergency fund set up, the other, start from day one. I accept there are pros and cons to either approach.  But - if you have access to a matched 401(k), even a conservative, risk-adverse approach might agree that a 100% match (on the first say 5% of your income) is preferable to saving in a low return emergency fund. If the emergency occurs, a low interest loan for the need is a cheap way out. Since the money goes in pre-tax and is matched, being able to borrow out half (IRS rules) effectively lets you borrow more than you deposited out of pocket. And the word emergency implies a low occurrence event. Deposit to the match and start the emergency fund in another account.  If no matched 401(k) at work, the other two answers are great.  Edit - To clarify, and answer a comment below - say the risk isn't just a money emergency, but job loss. $1000 deposited to the 401(k) cost $850 out of pocket, assuming 15% bracket. After the match, it's $2000. After the job loss, if this is withdrawn, if the 15% still applies (it may be 10% or even 0%) the net is $1700 less the 10% penalty, or $1500 back in your pocket.  There are those who will say they are just not comfortable running an emergency account so lean, I understand that. For the OP here, $800/mo is nearly $10,000 per year. If even half of that can be deposited pre-tax and matched, the account will grow very quickly and there would still be cash on the side.

negative: As far as the spam mail goes, I own a rental (in Connecticut) and live in Massachusetts, I get very little mail related to this property. I view this as a non-compelling reason.  Your other reasons pick up quick in value. The protection from the rest of your assets is helpful, and the one con for most is the inability to get a loan with such a structure, but in your case, a cash purchase is mentioned.  I don't know what the fees are to start an LLC, but overall, I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Yes, your Pro 4 looks good, an ongoing business with a track record will help the next purchase.

negative: It's very simple. The low cost index funds are generally the best investments for investors, but - because of the low fees and the fact that the offerings of different companies are nearly identical - they are the worst for the investment houses. Therefore, the investment houses spend a lot of money convincing investors to choose other funds.  If you remember that investment houses are all in the business of making money for themselves, not for the investor, then the whole financial system will make much more sense.

negative: In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)

negative: "You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest.  From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the   interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not   secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be   deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used   for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered   personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you.  Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C.  In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product.  Putting the facts aside, I often use the line ""don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog."" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story."

negative: Is it worth saving HSA funds until retirement? Yes Are there pros and cons from a tax perspective?  Mostly pros. This has all of the benefits of an IRA, but if you use it for medical expenses then you get to use the money tax free on the other side. Retirement seems to be the time you are most likely to need money for medical expenses. So why wouldn't you want to start saving tax free to cover those expenses? The cons are similar to other tax advantaged retirement accounts. If you withdraw before retirement time for non-medical purposes, you will pay penalties, but if you withdraw at retirement time, you will pay the same taxes you would pay on an IRA. I should note that I put my money where my mouth is and I max out my contribution to my HSA every year.

negative: This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due.

negative: "If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds.   There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community.  Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index).  Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently.  So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do.  And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in.  They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want.  Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a ""lazy 3 fund portfolio"", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself.  Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence.  Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment.  Vanguard's S&P500 index fund.  The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers.  (proceeds go to charity).  That was about 9 years ago.  So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds.  Investopedia Article"

negative: "If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard   ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs   may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same   fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage   firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result   in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market,   Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not   allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of   the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional   shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers   may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your   brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot   convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held   through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate.  Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top.  If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern ""asset allocations"" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%.  If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance.  Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal.  Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash."

negative: "These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero.  The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is ""the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window."" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days.   In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other."

negative: In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees.  Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees.  There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market.  This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds.  Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.

negative: is There Anyway I can Avoid losing 6-10% per Trade. As My Current Investment House Has Charged & will Be taking 5% hit quarterly If Left Untouched  Stop trading penny stocks.  Take your investment elsewhere and put it in a low-fee index fund ETF.  You'll probably get a better return on your money.

negative: "It is difficult to find investment banks that offer both low fees and low minimum investments. If you google around for ""no-fee low-minimum mutual funds"" you can find various articles with recommendations, such as this one.  One fund they mention that looks promising is the Schwab Total Stock Market Index Fund, which apparently has a minimum investment of only $100 and an expense ratio of 0.09%.  (I've never heard of this fund before, so I'm just repeating the info from the site.  Be sure to look into it more thoroughly to see if there are any hidden costs here.  I'm not recommending this fund, just mentioning it as an example of what you may be able to find.) Another possibility is to make use of funds in an existing brokerage account that you use for yourself.  This could allow you to make use of Craig W.'s suggestion about ETFs.  For instance, if you already have a brokerage account at Vanguard or another firm, you could add $100 to the account and buy some particular fund, mentally earmarking it as your daughter's."

negative: Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.

negative: Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions).  If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about.  The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)

negative: Lets consider what would happen if you invested $1500/mo plus $10k down in a property, or did the same in a low-cost index fund over the 30 year term that most mortgages take.  The returns of either scenarios cannot be guaranteed, but there are long term analyses that shows the stock market can be expected to return about 7%, compounded yearly. This doesn't mean each year will return 7%, some years will be negative, and some will be much higher, but that over a long span, the average will reach 7%.  Using a Time-Value-of-Money calculator, that down payment, monthly additions of $1,500, and a 7% annual return would be worth about $1.8M in 30 years. If 1.8M were invested, you could safely withdraw $6000/mo for the rest of your life. Do consider 30years of inflation makes this less than today's dollar.  There are long term analyses that show real estate more-or-less keeps track with inflation at 2-4% annual returns. This doesn't consider real estate taxes, maintenance, insurance and the very individual and localized issues with your market and your particular house. Is land limited where you are, increasing your price? Will new development drive down your price?  In 30 years, you'll own the house outright. You'll still need to pay property tax and insurance on it, and you'll be getting rental income. Over those 30 years, you can expect to replace a roof, 2-3 hot water heaters, concrete work, several trees, decades of snow shoveling, mowing grass and weeding, your HVAC system, windows and doors, and probably a kitchen and bathroom overhauls. You will have paid about 1.5x the initial price of the mortgage in interest along the way.  So you'll have whatever the rental price for your house, monthly (probably almost impossible to predict for a single-family home) plus the market price of your house. (again, very difficult to predict, but could safely say it keeps pace with inflation) minus your expenses.  There are scenarios where you could beat the stock market. There are ways to reduce the lifestyle burden of being a landlord.  Along the way, should you want to purchase a house for yourself to live in, you'll have to prove the rental income is steady, to qualify for a loan. Having equity in a mortgage gives you something to borrow against, in a HELOC. Of course, you could easily end up owing more than your house is worth in that situation.  Personally, I'd stick to investing that money in low-fee index funds.

negative: The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index.  These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds.  Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity.  The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk.  It's not even low-risk, really.  It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market.  An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks.  Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing.  If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you.

negative: "Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices.  From an investors point of view, this is not important.  What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage.  In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%.  Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the ""compare"" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500.  You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds.  Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing."

negative: First: it sounds like you are already making wise choices with your cash surplus. You've looked for ways to keep that growing ahead of inflation and you have made use of tax shelters. So for the rest of this answer I am going to assume you have between 3-6 months expenses already saved up as a “rainy day fund” and you're ready for more sophisticated approaches to growing your funds. To answer this part: Are there any other ways that I can save/ invest that I am not currently doing? Yes, you could look at, for example: 1. Peer to peer These services let you lend to a 'basket' of borrowers and receive a return on your money that is typically higher than what's offered in cash savings accounts. Examples of peer to peer networks are Zopa, Ratesetter and FundingCircle. This involves taking some risks with your money – Zopa's lending section explains the risks. 2. Structured deposits These are a type of cash deposit product where, in return for locking your money away for a time (typically 5 years), you get the opportunity for higher returns e.g. 5% + / year. Your deposit is usually guaranteed under the FSCS (Financial services compensation scheme), however, the returns are dependent on the performance of a stock market index such as the FTSE 100 being higher in x years from now. Also, structured deposits usually require a minimum £3,000 investment. 3. Index funds You mention watching the stock prices of a few companies. I agree with your conclusion – I wouldn't suggest trying to choose individual stocks at this stage. Price history is a poor predictor of future performance, and markets can be volatile. To decide if a stock is worth buying you need to understand the fundamentals, be able to assess the current stock price and future outlook, and be comfortable accepting a range of different risks (including currency and geographic risk). If you buy shares in a small number of companies, you are concentrating your risk (especially if they have things in common with each other). Index funds, while they do carry risks, let you pool your money with other investors to buy shares in a 'basket' of stocks to replicate the movement of an index such as the FTSE All Share. The basket-of-stocks approach at least gives you some built-in diversification against the risks of individual stocks. I suggest index funds (as opposed to actively managed funds, where you pay a management fee to have your investments chosen by a professional who tries to beat the market) because they are low cost and easier to understand. An example of a very low cost index fund is this FTSE All Share tracker from Aberdeen, on the Hargreaves Lansdown platform: http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/a/aberdeen-foundation-growth-accumulation General principle on investing in stock market based index funds: You should always invest with a 5+ year time horizon. This is because prices can move up and down for reasons beyond your anticipation or control (volatility). Time can smooth out volatility; generally, the longer the time period, the greater your likelihood of achieving a positive return. I hope this answer so far helps takes into account the excess funds. So… to answer the second part of your question:  Or would it be best to start using any excess funds […] to pay off my student loan quicker? Your student loan is currently costing you 0.9% interest per annum. At this rate it's lower than the last 10 years average inflation. One argument: if you repay your student loan this is effectively a 0.9% guaranteed return on every pound repaid – This is the equivalent of 1.125% on a cash savings account if you're paying basic rate tax on the interest. An opposing argument: 0.9% is lower than the last 10 years' average inflation in the UK. There are so many advantages to making a start with growing your money for the long term, due to the effects of compound returns, that you might choose to defer your loan repayments for a while and focus on building up some investments that stand a chance to beat inflation in the long term.

negative: I was in a similar situation with my now 6 year old.  So I'll share what I chose.  Like you, I was already funding a 529. So I opened a custodial brokerage account with Fidelity and chose to invest in very low expense index fund ETFs which are sponsored by Fidelity, so there are no commissions.  The index funds have a low turnover as well, so they tend to be minimal on capital gains. As mentioned in the other answer, CDs aren't paying anything right now.  And given your long time to grow, investing in the stock market is a decent bet. However, I would steer clear of any insurance products.  They tend to be heavy on fees and low on returns.  Insurance is for insuring something not for investing.

negative: If you can still work, I think a very good course of action would be to invest the majority of the money in low-cost index funds for many years. The reason is that you are young and have plenty of time to build a sizable retirement fund. How you go about this course of action depends on your comfort level with managing your money, taxes, retirement accounts, etc. At a minimum, open an investment account at any of the major firms (Schwab, Fidelity, for example). They will provide you with a free financial advisor. Ideally s/he would recommend something like: Open a retirement account and invest as much as you can tax-free or tax-deferred. Since you already received the money tax-free, a Roth IRA seems like a no-brainer. Pick some low-fee equity funds, like an S&P 500 Index fund, for a large chunk of the money. Avoid individual stocks if you aren't comfortable with them. Alternatively, get a recommendation for a fixed-fee financial planner that can help you plan for your future. Above all, don't spend beyond your means! You have an opportunity to fund a very nice future for yourself, especially if you are able to work while you are still so young!

negative: "You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application.  Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a ""good faith estimate"" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application.  On the other hand, government regulations make the ""good faith estimates"" somewhat misleading.  (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to ""bring to the closing table"".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic ""appraisal value"".  Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications.  (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt.  Banks tend to round up the minimum payments.  Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income.  Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years.  Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns.  There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay.  Many banks are willing to lower your ""note rate"" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front.  The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called ""no-fee"" or ""no-closing cost"" loan.  These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher ""note rate"". Unless you ask for a ""no-fee"" or ""no-closing cost"" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers.  Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount.  Divide that percentage by 4.  Add that percentage to the ""note rate"" for a loan with ""no points"".  Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers.  (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay ""points"" to lower the ""note rate"".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application.  Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day.  You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:"

negative: If you have just started an IRA (presumably with a contribution for 2012),  you likely have $5000 in it, or $10,000 if you made a full contribution for  2013 as well. At this time, I would recommend putting it all in a  single low-cost mutual fund. Typically, mutual funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 Index have lower costs (annual expense fees) than actively managed funds, and most investment companies offer such mutual funds, with Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, to name a few, having very low expenses even among index funds. Later, when you have more money in the account, you can consider diversifying into more funds, buying stocks and bonds, investing in ETFs, etc. Incidentally, if you are just starting out and your Roth IRA is essentially your first investment experience, be aware that you do not need a brokerage account for your Roth IRA until you have more money in the account to invest and specifically want to buy individual stocks and bonds instead of just mutual funds. If you opened a brokerage account for your Roth IRA, close it and  transfer the Roth IRA to your choice of mutual fund company; else you will be paying annual fees to the brokerage for maintaining your account, inactivity fees since you won't be doing any trading, etc. The easiest way to do this is to go to the mutual fund company web site and tell them that you want to transfer your IRA to them (not roll over your IRA to them) and they will take care of all the paper work and collecting your money from the brokerage (ditto if your Roth IRA is with a bank or another mutual fund company). Then close your brokerage account.

negative: "Two types of people: (1) Suckers (2) People who feel that investment advisors/brokers make too little money and want to help out by paying insane commissions. Think I'm kidding. Check out this article: ""Variable Annuity Pros and Cons"" Seriously, for 99% of us, they are a raw deal for everyone except the person selling them."

negative: "You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is ""Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund."" Or as he said at a different time, ""Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees"".  You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund.  Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy."

negative: Mortgage or other interest rates are determined by the banks on cost of funds, risk and operating cost.   The Fed raises money from the markets by issuing Tresury Bonds at a specified rate. This rate at which it raises money varies depening on the economy. Thus there are 2 rates: the rate at which banks can borrow money from the Fed, which is higher than the rate that the Fed would give banks for excess money deposited with them. So if the cost of borrowing is less, banks can borrow this money from the Fed and loan it to individuals at a slightly higher rate that would cover their costs plus a small profit. The risk associated with a mortgage is less, and hence these would be cheaper, then say a personal loan.  If the cost of borrowing goes up, the mortgage rate will go up. If the cost of borrowing money goes down, the cost would come down. Banks may not always borrow money to lend. If they have existing money, they can either park it with the Fed for a lower interest rate, or loan it to individuals for a rate higher than what they would have received from the Fed.

negative: You already did the leg work by putting your money in a Schwab account. They have some of the lowest fees on index funds you can buy. I would keep things dead simple. Decide if you want some of it to be an IRA or not, and then plow your funds into a broad stock only index fund such as SCHB, SCHX, or SCHV (you could buy all three, but there would be no need to whatsoever). You will get around 2-2.5 % dividend yield, be diversified, and have extreme low fees. Fees are key to getting good returns in funds. Of course..set tax money aside as well.


query: California tells me I didn't file documents for an LLC that isn't mine. What do I do?

positive: "Did it show just your address, or was your name on it as well?   You didn't share how long you've lived at the address either, so it makes me wonder whether a former tenant is the one who filed that paperwork.  It's also possible that someone used your address when making a filing.  Whether that was deliberate or accidental is hard to discern, as is their intent if it was intentional. It could be accidental -- someone picked ""CA"" for California when they meant to pick ""CO"" for Colorado or ""CT"" for Connecticut...These things do happen.  It can't make you feel any better about the situation though. You should be able to go online to the California Secretary of State's website (here) and look up everything filed by the LLC with the state.  That will show who the founders were and everything else that is a matter of public record on the LLC.  At the very least, you can obtain the registered agent's name and address for the LLC, which you can then use to contact them and ask why your address is listed as the LLC's business address. Once you have that info, you can then contact the Secretary of State and tell them it isn't you so they can do whatever is necessary to correct this. This doesn't sound like a difficult matter to clear up, but it's important to do your homework first and gather as much information as you can before you call the state.  Answering ""I don't know"" won't get you very far with them compared to having the best answers you can about where the mistake started. I hope this helps. Good luck!"

negative: There's no reason to keep the California LLC if you don't intend to do business in California.  If you'll have sales in California then you'll need to keep it and file taxes accordingly for those sales.  You can just as easily form a new LLC in Washington state and even keep the same name (if it's available in Washington, that is). Keeping the California LLC just creates paperwork for whatever regulatory filings California will require for no purpose at all.   As for your question about it looking suspicious that you just set up an LLC and then are shutting it down, nobody's going to care, to be honest.  As with your situation, plans change, so it isn't really all that unusual.  If you're concerned the government will say something, don't.

negative: Are you talking about domicile? An LLC is treated differently than a corporation in the terms of citizenship of the law. An LLC is a citizen of whichever state it's members (shareholders) are citizens.  I would recommend you just spend the money on a business attorney to ensure that all the t's are crossed correctly so it doesn't end up costing you more later on.

negative: "If the single active member lives in California and works at home, then you likely need to register in CA and pay the annual $800 franchise tax.  California is quite aggressive about enforcing registration of LLCs. A foreign LLC needs to register if it is ""doing business"" in California.  Here is a blog post that covers it in some detail.  It looks like you meet at least one of the criteria for doing business in California, such as:"

negative: Supposedly this also means that I am free from having to pay   California corporate taxes? Not in the slightest. Since you (the corporate employee) reside in CA - the corporation is doing business in CA and is liable for CA taxes. Or, does this mean I am required to pay both CA taxes and Delaware   fees? (In this case, minimal, just a paid agent from incorporate.com) I believe DE actually does have corporate taxes, check it out. But the bottom line is yes, you're liable for both CA and DE costs of doing corporate business (income taxes, registered agents, CA corp fee, etc). Is there any benefit at all for me to be a Delaware C-Corp or should I   dissolve and start over. Or just re-incorporate as California LLC Unless you intend to go public anytime soon or raise money from VCs/investors - there's no benefit whatsoever in incorporating in DE. You should seek a legal advice with an attorney, of course, since benefits are legal issues (usually related to choosing jurisdiction for litigation etc). If you're a one-person freelancer, doing C-Corp was not the best decision as well. Tax-wise you'd be much better off with a S-Corp, or a LLC - both pass-through and have no (Federal) entity-level taxes. Corporate rates are generally higher than individual rates, and less deductions can be taken. In California, check with a CPA/EA licensed in the State, since both S-Corp and LLC would be taxed, and taxed differently.

negative: I have researched this question extensively in previous years as we have notoriously high taxes in California, while neighboring a state that has zero corporate income tax and personal income tax. Many have attempted pull a fast one on the California taxation authorities, the Franchise Tax Board, by incorporating in Nevada or attempting to declare full-year residence in the Silver State. This is basically just asking for an audit, however.  California religiously examines taxpayers with any evidence of having presence in California. If they deem you to be a resident in California, and they likely will based on the fact that you live in California (physical presence), you will be subject to taxation on  your worldwide income. You could incorporate in Nevada or Bangladesh, and California will still levy its taxation on any business income (Single Member LLCs are disregarded as separate corporate entities, but still taxed at ordinary income rates on the personal income tax basis). To make things worse, if California examines your Single Member LLC and finds that it is doing business in California, based on the fact that its sole owner is based in California all year long, you could feasibly end up with additional penalties for having neglected to file your LLC in California (California LLCs are considered domestic, and only file in California unless they wish to do business in other states; Nevada LLCs are considered foreign to California, requiring the owner to file a domestic LLC organization in Nevada and then a foreign LLC organization in California, which still gets hit with the minimum $800 franchise fee because it is a foreign LLC doing business in California).  Evading any filing responsibility in California is not advisable. FTB consistently researches LLCs, S-Corporations and the like to determine whether they've been organized out-of-state but still principally operated in California, thus having a tax nexus with California and the subsequent requirement to be filed in California and taxed by California. No one likes paying taxes, and no one wants to get hit with franchise fees, especially when one is starting a new venture and that minimum $800 assessment seems excessive (in other words, you could have a company that earns nothing, zero, zip, nada, and still has to pay the $800 minimum fee), but the consequences of shirking tax laws and filing requirements will make the franchise fee seem trivial in comparison.  If you're committed to living in California and desire to organize an LLC or S-Corp, you must file with the state of California, either as a domestic corporation/LLC or foreign corporation/LLC doing business in California. The only alternatives are being a sole proprietor (unincorporated), or leaving the state of California altogether. Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure, but that's the law.

negative: The security concept of minimising attack surface could be stretched to apply here, especially if closing the account would mean the end of your relationship with that bank.  Essentially more routes into your finances or personal information means more opportunities for fraud, more accounts to keep an eye on, more logins to remember/store, and even more paperwork/idle cards to check (for unexpected activity and T&C changes), store and eventually shred.  However I had a couple of online-only savings accounts with zero balance for a few years, at a bank where I have other accounts, and I didn;t worry in the slightest.  (You can open the accounts online but have to phone to close them and sitting on hold is too much of a chore for me. Eventually they realised their mistake, brought in a minimum balance requirement, and after giving notice closed accounts with less that that in them)

negative: Theft of what? ive never taken a penny of your money. My suggestion, if implemented would save tax money and t would esppecially save people the thousands of dollars they often must pay for private insurance that gets worse and worse.  Tell me, do you also want to privatize the post office?

negative: I have been charting the CPI reported inflation rate vs . the yeald on the 10-year T-note. Usually, the two like to keep pace with each other. Sometimes the T-note is a bit higher than the inflation rate, sometimes the inflation rate is a bit higher than the T-note yeald. One does not appear to follow the other, but (until recently) the two do not diverge from each other by much.  But all that changed recently and I am without an explanation as to why. Inflation dropped to zero (or a bit negative) yet the yeald on the 10-year T-note seemed to seek 2%.  Edit: If you give this response a downvote then please be kind enough to explain why in a comment.  Edit-2: CPI and 10-year T-note are what I have tracked, and continue to track. If you do not like my answer then provide a better one, yourself.

negative: According to the Illinois Department of Revenue, you don't have to file any taxes that are specific to a LLC, only your personal taxes. LLC on Federal level is disregarded, instead you submit all your business income/expenses on Schedule C. On the state level - it seems to be the same (only individual tax return). Consult your state certified tax specialist. That is not the case in other states, for example in California LLC has to file its own tax return and pay its own taxes, in additional to the individual taxes.

negative: "> Also, if accounting suddenlly decides to hire a bunch of new employees why should the cost for the computers come out of IT's budget?   What does it even mean for something ""to come out of IT's budget?"" As far as I can tell, what it means is that you don't understand the difference between a planning tool and a t-account.  > As long as IT's budget is subserviant to the whims of other departments you can't really call it a budget at all. Rather, it is just a pool of money that anyone can dip in to.  Budgets aren't pools of money at all, they're planning tools. Actual pools of money are t-accounts. I am nearly 100% certain that your IT department doesn't not have its own t-account, though once the distinction between budgets and t-accounts are so thoroughly confused that you are commonly saying things ""come out of our budget,"" the next logical step can appear to be inter-departmental charge-backs.  The reality is that business expenses are driven by growth and constrained by cash flow. Managers must learn how to produce budgets that anticipate growth, so that cash flow can be managed by the accountants, and so that executives can make decisions about priorities.  Doing inter-department charge-backs is a way of doing this in an organization whose relationships are so fucked up that you can't do it by actually talking to each other. Have fun with that."

negative: At the end of the day - it is not moral to hire someone to put a gun to someone else's head to pay off your debt. The ends should never justify the means if you are an honorable person. I believe in personal responsibility and freedom. Capitalism is the reason why people fled to the US and why t has become the wealthiest country with the best standard of living in history in record time.   Your telling me Europe is doing great right now? Is that a joke? What about socialist countries like Venezuela and Greece?

negative: Sorry for your loss. I am not a lawyer and this isn;t legal advice -- which I am not licensed to give. But I've had to deal with some debt situations of my own. I think the worst case scenario is the creditor can get a judgment, but that won't be against you unless you were a co-signor. The collectors are going to prey on your decency to make you feel like you should pay it, but you are under no legal obligation to do so.  If they file in court and then win a judgment, they may be able to collect on the assets of the estate. You mention no money but you mention a house. That is an asset with value, and putting it in your name isn't going to do much. You should see a lawyer on this, because it seems logical that they could collect on the value of the house at the time of the death, and even if it was willed to you it can still be attacked to pay the debt.  Here is a good write-up on NJ death and debt and whether it can be inherited by the adult children: https://www.atrbklaw.com/bankruptcy-resources/83-articles/103-can-you-inherit-your-dead-parent-s-debts

negative: If the business is legally separated and not commingled - they probably cannot. What they can do is put a lien on it (so that you cannot sell the business) and garnish your income. If the corporate veil is pierced (and its not that hard to have it pierced if you're not careful) - then they can treat it as if it is your personal asset. Verify this with a lawyer licensed in your state, I'm not a lawyer or a tax professional.

negative: "The FTB, as any government agency, is understaffed and underpaid. Even if someone took a glance and it wasn't just an automated letter - consider the situation: you filed as a LLC and then amended to file as a partnership. Unless someone really pays attention - the obvious assumption would be that you had a limited partnership. Yes, you'll need to call them and work with them on fixing this. They do have all the statements you've attached. However, there's a lot of automation and very little attention to details when it comes to matching errors, so don't get surprised if no-one even looked at these statements. Next time your elected government officials talk about ""small government"" and ""cutting government expenses"" - you can remind yourself how it looks in action with this experience."

negative: "You need to hire a tax professional and have them sort it out for you properly and advise you on how to proceed next. Don't do it yourself, you're way past the stage when you could. You're out of compliance, and you're right - there are penalties that a professional might know how to mitigate, and maybe even negotiate a waiver with the IRS, depending on the circumstances of the case. Be careful of answers like ""you don't need to pay anything"" that are based on nothing of facts. Based on what you said in the question and in the comments, it actually sounds like you do have to pay something, and you're in trouble with the IRS already. It might be that you misunderstood something in the past (e.g.: you said the business had filed taxes before, but in fact that might never happened and you're confusing ""business filed taxes"" with ""I filed schedule C"") or it might be the actual factual representation of things (you did in fact filed a tax return for your business with the IRS, either form 1120 of some kind or 1065). In any case a good licensed (CPA or EA) professional will help you sort it out and educate you on what you need to do in the future."

negative: You need to fill out form 8606.  It's not taxable, but you still need to report it

negative: If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.

negative: I called the IRS (click here for IRS contact info) and they said I do not need to get a new EIN.  I could have just filed the appropriate employer federal tax return (940/941) and then the filing requirements would have been updated.  But while I was on the phone, they just updated the filing requirements for my LLC so I am all good now (I still need to file the correct form and make the correct payments, etc. but I can use this same EIN going forward). Disclaimer: Don't trust me (or this answer) for tax advice (your situation may be different).  The IRS person on the phone was very helpful so I recommend calling them if you are in a similar situation.  FYI, I have found calling the IRS to always be very helpful.

negative: California is very aggressive about enforcing LLC franchise taxes.  The only correction I'd make to Kekito's answer is that the fee is $800 minimum or some percentage of the LLC's total business volume in the state.  What's killer about it is that the tax is dependent not on what your LLC's profit is, but what its revenues are!  Here's a good link explaining how the tax is calculated: California LLC Franchise Tax Rates Be very careful about making sure you comply with every dot in the California codes or else you really won't like what happens.  It's one of the reasons so many companies avoid locating operations in California if at all possible. I hope this helps. Good luck!

negative: The other day, I was catching up on some saved articles while sitting next to my girlfriend on the couch. I was reading [Levine's article](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-12/biotech-firm-didn-t-enjoy-its-six-days-as-a-public-company) about the failed Vascular Biogenics IPO and kept literally laughing out loud. My girlfriend asked what was so funny so I read her this bit;  > I was a capital markets banker for four years, and a corporate lawyer before that, and today I did a thing I've never done before, which is read an underwriting agreement. Nobody reads underwriting agreements! The point of an underwriting agreement is for junior lawyers to get practice using track changes in Word.   I don't think I've ever seen a more disinterested stare from her, but I don't care, that shit is hilarious.

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/11/the-myth-of-technological-unem) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Isn&#039;t technological unemployment a real and serious problem? Non-economists of a quantitative bent fret about what we&#039;re going to do when all the jobs go away-when, say, autonomous vehicles replace America&#039;s 3.5 million truck drivers.  > The gross figure of 1 percent of jobs lost per month is the relevant one for worries about technological unemployment.  > One in which all jobs are protected, bureaucrats decide who gets subsidies and who doesn&#039;t, and the economy slides, as France has, into stagnation and high levels of youth unemployment? Or one in which labor laws are flexible, individual workers decide their own futures, and the economy lifts up the poorest among us?   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6mupwx/the_myth_of_technological_unemployment/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~165476 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **job**^#1 **worked**^#2 **know**^#3 **percent**^#4 **unemployment**^#5"

negative: Inform the company that you didn't receive the payment. Only they can trace the payment via their bank.

negative: Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do.  If your name was on the mortgage, you owe the money, regardless of who kept the house. They can (and likely will) come after you for the money as well.  A bit late in your case, but that's why when people divorce, refinancing the house into one person's name (and the other quit-claiming their interest) is usually part of the settlement. ETA:  As others have mentioned, since you are in California, it appears that they cannot come after you for the difference.

negative: Since you both are members of the LLC - it is not a single-member LLC, thus you have to file the tax return on behalf of the LLC (I'm guessing you didn't elect corporate treatment, so you would be filing 1065, which is the default). You need to file form 4868 on behalf of yourselves as individuals, and form 7004 on behalf of the LLC as the partnership. Since the LLC is disregarded (unless you explicitly chose it not to be, which seems not to be the case) the taxes will in fact flow to your individual return(s), but the LLC will have to file the informational return on form 1065 and distribute K-1 forms to each of you. So you wouldn't pay additional estimated taxes with the extension, as you don't pay any taxes with the form 1065 itself. If you need a help understanding all that and filling the forms - do talk to a professional (EA or CPA licensed in your state). Also, reconsider not sending any payment. I suggest sending $1 with the extension form even if you expect a refund.

negative: You appear to just have admitted to tax evasion. You need a lawyer. There's a good chance you don't actually owe any money, but you need legal advice. To be clear, you may well not have been obligated to file tax returns, but you have stated you had some income you didn't report, so there's really nothing else we can say other than recommend you seek legal advice.

negative: In this case not only that you must register in California (either as domestic, or as foreign if you decided to form elsewhere), you'll also be on the hook for back-taxes if you didn't do it from the start. FTB is notorious for going after out-of-state LLCs that Californians open in other States trying to avoid the $800 fee.

negative: "SOS stands for Secretary of State. The California Department of State handles the business entities registration, and the website is here. See ""Forms"" in the navigation menu on the left. Specifically, you'll be looking for LLC-5."

negative: Don't worry about the spam mail. If you get a loan, it will be based on your personal credit. I don't know if you can get a real estate loan for your LLC, even if it owns many properties. Typically you get the loan in your own name, then transfer title to the LLC. The LLC does offer good liability protection. The downside is that it can be expensive (at least in California) and requires some work. You may have to pay an annual tax, and file (multiple) tax returns. It may not be worth it for one property. But it definitely a good idea if it is not too expensive.

negative: You proceed with a proper legal advice. You should not ignore IRS letters. You should have taken your chances in trying to reach a compromise with them, but that ship has likely sailed already. You might want to consider bankruptcy. Ask your parents for a couple of hundreds of dollars to pay for a legal consultation with a lawyer and a CPA and proceed from there.

negative: It is ordinary income to you. You should probably talk to a California licensed CRTP/EA/CPA, but I doubt they'll say anything different. You would probably ask them whether you can treat some of it as a refund of rent paid, but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with that.

negative: T. Rowe is my new 401 k company and they have been pretty professional the problem was they required information from my old employer who refused to give it to them. But I am in touch my my old 401 k account and will be doing some more research into the companies and processes you guys have given me amd try to choose what is best for me

negative: Everyone likes to hate on AT&T, but really, all the major four brands are the same. I get the same amount of dropped calls on both Verizion and AT&T to be honest.  I feel like Sprint charges a bit more, but they don't have a cap on their data plans, so if you do multiple GB per month they are the best choice.  Otherwise, just go with whichever carrier is the best in your area. It varries from state to state, but generally AT&T is great is most mid-sized cities, and Verizon is great in the suburbs or country.   I can't speak about T-mobile since I don't know anyone with it