query: Work on the side for my wife's company

positive: My understanding (I am not a lawyer or tax expert) is that you are not allowed to work for free, but you can pay yourself minimum wage for the hours worked. There are probably National Insurance implications as well but I don't know. The main thing is, though, that if HMRC think that you've set up this system as a tax avoidance scheme then they're allowed to tax you as though all the income had been yours in the first place. If you are considering such a setup I would strongly advise you to hire a qualified small business accountant who will be familiar with the rules and will be able to advise you on what is and is not possible / sensible. Falling outside the rules (even inadvertently) leaves you liable to a lot of hassle and potentially fines etc.

positive: "In the US, you'd run the risk of being accused of fraud if this weren't set up properly.  It would only be proper if your wife could show that she were involved, acting as your agent, bookkeeper, etc. Even so, to suggest that your time is billed at one rate but you are only paid a tiny fraction of that is still a high risk alert.  I believe the expression ""if it quacks like a duck..."" is pretty universal. If not, I'll edit in a clarification.  note -I know OP is in UK, but I imagine tax collection is pretty similar in this regard."

positive: Depending on how much freelance work we're talking about you could set up a limited company, with you and your wife as directors. By invoicing all your work through the limited company (which could have many other benefits for you, an accountant/advisor would... well, advise...) it's the company earning the money, not you or her personally. You can then pay your wife up to £10,000 per year (as of writing this) without income tax kicking in. You would probably have to pay yourself a small amount to minimise exposure to HMRC's snooping, but possibly not... as far as I'm aware the rules do not state anything about working for free, for yourself - and I wouldn't worry about the ethics, you're already paying plenty into HMRC's bank account through your day job! Some good information here if you're interested: https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/psc-guide/pscguide-how-does-it-all-work-in-practice-salaries-and-dividends/

negative: There are many aspects to consider in deciding what sort of company you want to form. Instead of an S-corporation, you should determine whether it would be better to form a Limited Liability Company (LLC), Limited Partnership (LP) or even a professional company (PC). Littleadv is correct: There is minimal benefit in forming an S-corp with you and your wife as the shareholders, if you will be the only contributor-worker. There are costs associated with an S-corporation, or any corporation, that might outweigh benefits from more favorable tax treatment, or personal protection from liability: Filing fees and disclosure rules vary from state to state. For example, my father was a cardiologist who had no employees, other than my grandmother (she worked for free), in a state with income taxes (NM). He was advised that a PC was best in New Mexico, while an S-Corp was better in Florida (there are no personal income taxes in Florida).  The only way to know what to do requires that you consult an accountant, a good one, for guidance.

negative: That's really not something that can be answered based on the information provided. There are a lot of factors involved: type of income, your wife's tax bracket, the split between Federal and State (if you're in a high bracket in a high income-tax rate State - it may even be more than 50%), etc etc. The fact that your wife didn't withdraw the money is irrelevant. S-Corp is a pass-through entity, i.e.: owners are taxed on the profits based on their personal marginal tax rates, and it doesn't matter what they did with the money. In this case, your wife re-invested it into the corp (used it to pay off corp debts), which adds back to her basis. You really should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to learn how S-Corps work and how to use them properly. Your wife, actually, as she's the owner.

negative: One thing to look into is if there is an extra fee for covering a spouse under you plan, if she is covered under her own employer's plan.  I know that my wife's company charges around $100-$200 a year if I was to be covered under her plan, since I am eligible for the coverage where I work. As far as tax issues, there shouldn't be any.  I think the choice comes down to the coverage offered by both plans.

negative: "I would suggest you pay quarterly. Or, if you prefer, do the extra withholding. Don't wait until the end of the year. My experience is that of having a day job with freelance work on the side. I've spent a few years just freelancing, and I paid quarterly as requested to avoid the penalties. Now that I have a good day job again, my freelancing is just a small part of my income, and so I end up with a net return and no longer have to pay quarterly. You shouldn't wait until the end of the year to pay. This is assuming your wife is bringing in a decent income. The only scenario where you would want to wait is if her income is only a small amount (such as my wife's plans for an Etsy store). To the IRS, it doesn't really make a difference whether you withhold extra or pay quarterly. Of those two choices, my preference is to pay quarterly - it's easy to set up calendar reminders on the quarterly payment dates, which are always the same. I did the same as bstpierre when estimating my payments: just take last year's tax (for the business) and divide by 4 (adjusting for any obvious situational differences). That's usually close enough. Paying quarterly instead of via withholding means you get to hold on to your money (on average) for 6 weeks longer. Granted, that doesn't mean much with today's interest rates, but it's something. You may prefer the simpler accounting for withholding, though - you can ""set and forget""."

negative: "My wife currently works for a Bain-backed company.  I've seen it more times than I can count: Bain buys US-based companies, keeps a fraction of the skilled-labor in the US, and ships mostly everything else to China/Mexico (more China at this point).  I understand why they do this (keeps costs down, increases profits, etc), but it still angers me to no end.  IMHO: Just because ""it works"", it doesn't make it right.  Greedy fucks."

negative: I'm currently in process. I work full time for one big local company and side Hustle in my free time. U must have some income, so I belive this is good path. In future, when I could live from my own company I will quit my current job. But that means that you should work at least 14-16 h/day. It is hard but it will be worth one day.  Make some product, find clients etc. Start small, find some co-founder(s) and just start.

negative: "Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions   I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be   delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee   could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government   bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest   Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy   will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10   percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds   and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat   specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: ""I believe   the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to   those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions   or individuals."""

negative: My wife works for one of them, and I don't get the hatred.  Ethics, at least in the company my wife works for, are non-negotiable.  People get fired for the smallest offense.  Are there some bad apples that don't follow the rules?  Maybe.  But in general, the rules are followed to the letter.  As for researchers and average workers getting shafted, that's also hyperbole.  Granted, like all businesses, the higher-ups want more done with less.  But shafted?  Hardly.  Field workers, at least at the station my wife works at, are paid pretty darn well for having little to no education.  Starting wages for field workers are better than Costco's.  Researches are paid well, too.  Far from hating the big company, people are proud of the work they do and the company they work for, and it makes them angry to see people so misinformed about the work they do.   The researchers at these companies go into the field they do to help humanity, similar to the same motivations that drive doctors.  They want to feed the world, but instead of getting praised as saviors of humanity, they are insulted and mocked.

negative: Thanks for your reply.  I agree shooting down the majority of Chinese as being shady is perhaps unfair. I was just left with a really bad taste after all the crazy situations I was in during those 10 years. I am sure they have some strong opinions about Americans also.   On the USA side I did bring my usual law firm in on a consultation and even contacted and consulted with a firm who specializes in Transportation Law. My wife and the Chinese side thought that was a waste of money - but it was valuable on answering many of the questions you bought up, including things like a DOT registration and so on. As for it being salvageable, I think not, as I cannot work with someone I don’t trust. The “recovery” is not much - just under $3000, as it was caught before the warehouse lease was signed/etc.  part of the problem was I required a “good faith” payment from them before the lease signing which they did not do. The Chinese side is scared of me for some of the reasons I alluded too in my original post - and they have agreed to pay that amount on Monday. I will give them a receipt for their payment, and move on without any further action. I think my wife has learned a lot from this - I have perhaps also - both about my wife and what she is willing to do and how much she wants to start a business. I agree that my demeanor is perhaps not 100% when I feel slighted - I will try to temper that some in future - but most importantly - through clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Thanks again!

negative: The average of a dozen good answers is close to what would be right, the wisdom of crowds. But any one answer will be skewed by one's own opinions.  The question is missing too much detail. I look at $400K as $16K/yr of ongoing withdrawals. How much do you make now? When the kids are all in school full time, can your wife work? $400K seems on the low side to me, especially with 3 kids. How much have you saved for college?  The $150K for your wife is also a bit low. Without a long tangent on the monetary value of the stay at home spouse, what will you spent on childcare if she passes?  Term life also has a expiration date. When my daughter was born, my wife and I got 20 year term. She is now 16, her college account fully funded, and we are semi-retired. The need for insurance is over. If one of us dies, the survivor doesn't need this big of a house, and will have more than they need to be comfortable in a downsized one. My belief is that the term value should bridge the gap to the kids getting through college and the spouse getting resettled. Too much less, I'd have left my wife at risk. Too much more, she'd be better off if I were dead. (I say that half joking, the insurance company will often limit the size policy to something reasonable.)

negative: I'll try just about anything generic.  I haven't had the best luck with off-brand coffee, though. One thing to check side-by-side is the ingredient list.  My wife is sensitive to some ingredients so that plays into what we buy.  Sometimes the generic brand has ingredients that she can have, but the name brand doesn't.

negative: If commuting is a big budget item, then can you: A side job is one way to make extra money, but I'd suggest a home business.  If your wife substitute teaches, I bet she writes fairly well, and in any case you can.  Write a personal finance blog or just a site with articles.  Focus on surviving and thriving with child(ren) in a one-income Christian household in the suburbs of Philadelphia.  Or if you have a hobby that stokes your furnace, write about that.  Heck, do both.  The content just stays there and gets traffic day after day that you can monetize. My main suggestion would be to start this now because it's not overnight money.  But in the long run it can turn into a nice, fairly passive income. The big advantage of this is that mommy gets to stay home with the kids and build up a decent business.  The cost is $10/year for the domain (per domain) and maybe $10/month for hosting. Or, if some other legitimate work-at-home business presents itself, go with that.  I suggest blogging because it's what I know, but everyone's an expert in something unique.

negative: "Agreed on all points.  You're still not saving a TON of money, given that you have to have a reasonable balance of salary/distributions, but an S-corp is the way to go if you're making substantial profit in order to save tax money.  I'll reiterate (my wife is a CPA and she guides me on my business) - you can't legally save ""untaxed earnings"" for next year."

negative: I did my own taxes previously using both H&R Block Tax Cut and TurboTax.  When I had a simple return and was single, it worked great.  Once I got married it was a little more complicated.  When I started a small side business, I switched to an accountant.  He does a great job of adjusting deductions between my wife and I and filing separately.  This minimizes the amount of taxes we have to pay.  It has been a few years since I used the software, but I did not see the ability to easily make adjustments like that.

negative: My wife has to pay tax on that? No. This will be treated as gift to your wife.  As a son he can gift unlimited amount to his mother without any tax implication to his mother.  If the amounts are large more than few lacs, best talk to CA and get a gift deed executed. Keep the paper work intact, i.e. details of the transfer, debit to your son's account with corresponding credit to your wife's account.

negative: "Having worked in insurance, I can give you a few pointers. Firstly, state that you ""may have to complain"". Insurers hate complaints because they really complicate matters, are loads of work and must be tracked. I would advise not actually escalating it to a complaint until later as this may cause a delay as the actual process is quite convoluted. Mentioning the possibility of complaint sometimes makes people a bit more active. Try and resolve the issue, and if you aren't getting anywhere then make a complaint. Maintain a friendly, assertive, polite demeanor. If you get angry and aggressive you'll not likely get far. Remember that the people on the end of the phone are both human and more knowledgeable about insurance than you. You want them on your side, not against you. Make copious notes. If you can, record calls. If you are recording calls you will likely legally need to give them the option of not being recorded, so make sure you mention that you're recording each individual call as soon as you start speaking to the handler.  Refer to your notes and make sure you carry out actions you say you will. If you spend a few days sending something you said you'd email over that day, and you then chase them a few days after that they may not have had the document through their workflow yet. It also engenders urgency if you're acting promptly, and suggests that you don't really care if you're taking your time.  Get Names. This is an important step, as this gives the handler someone to talk to who may be familiar with your case. You may end up speaking to the same people more than once, so try and build a rapport if you do. ""I like this guy"" may lead to a bit more effort being put in, and a potentially better outcome. In my experience, GoSkippy can be a bit slow to respond to things, so you'll likely have to chase them up. If you chase them up and say ""I called on X date, discussing Y with Z and Z said they would do A, B and C. Has this been done yet?"" it looks better than saying ""I called about a week ago and spoke to one of your colleagues who said he'd do something for me. He's not done it, what's going on?"", As to a plan of action, I would split this into two points: Mis-sold policy and definition of commuting. Mis-sold policy - If they truly gave your wife two options, then they messed up. The standard 3 offered by goskippy are Social Domestic and Pleasure (SDP), SDP+Commuting, and SDP+C and Business use. Other companies sometimes roll commuting into SDP as standard. On the comparison sites however, there are usually the three separate options, and if you used one to set the policy up and clicked ""SDP Only"" then you may be in trouble.  Social domestic and pleasure only DOES NOT include commuting. Whilst it is your responsibility to thoroughly check any documentation that comes through, it could be argued that if given two options between Business Use and SDP, then a reasonable person could be considered to assume that Goskippies definition of SDP did include commuting. Therefore, they need to prove to you that there were three options offered and that your wife specifically excluded commuting. IF they can't, then you should be able to argue that only two were offered and that commuting could have reasonably been assumed to be included. Use that term ""reasonable person"" btw, it's used in a lot of internal literature - at least at the insurer, I worked at. not commuting - Firstly, clarify their definition of ""commuting"". If your wife was on her way to work afterwards, then they may well consider she was commuting. For instance, at present, I drive from my house to my son's childminders, then to my wife's work and finally to mine. My commute could be argued to be 1 minute (my workplace is probably a minutes drive from my wife's, but I can't park in her car-park), but if I were to have an accident between my house and my son's childminder (~15 mins drive) the insurers would probably consider that commuting.  If she was not on her way to work afterwards, and assuming your wife arranged her visit via text (or whatsapp, fb messenger or similar) you should easily be able to show that your wife had driven from a friends house to the childminder. If she was on a holiday day or was not working on that day, then that's also something you should be able to prove either with proof of her working pattern or proof of her holiday. If she doesn't have a job at all, then again, that's something that's provable. Proof reigns king in claims, so if you can prove certain key facts then you should be on to a winner."

negative: "If you tried to live a 50's lifestyle (a lot more home cooking, much less electronics, a smaller house, a single car etc.) I think you would be able to afford it.  Also, I know of several people where the husband works and the wife stays at home - its do-able, its just hard to ""keep up with the Jone's"" bacuase you have half the money"

negative: "Problem is, my CEO told me I would ""get a raise every 12 days"" ""dollar here, dollar there"".   It's been 5 months of excellent work on my part, no bonus, no raise, nothing. I mean, I'm upset, but I wish I at least got recognized for my work. If it weren't for me doing something that got the attention of his wife (who also works here), he wouldn't even recognize me."

negative: I'm not business-savvy, but that seems like a very good idea. My wife works for a not-for-profit company, yet the CEO still makes $8,000,000 a year, *not* counting bonuses. I think in a for-profit, the CEO could easily afford to pay more employees to fill the gap made by decreasing the free labor he's used to.

negative: "Exactly it. I declared bankruptcy over 7 years ago. I was in a bad situation - I was laid off, the jobs in Salt Lake dried up after the Olympics, everything was in the crapper.  I found new work - in California. Went off and lived there alone for six months while my wife and children stayed behind. We used all of our savings keeping up on the mortgage, paying bills - and living like paupers. Once my wife came down, we knew we couldn't afford a place in CA *and* our home, so we rented it out.  To people who didn't pay their rent for six months, and we were so far away we couldn't just fly back to make it happen. And my wife was pregnant this whole time.  Finally, because of my wife, we gave in. And I felt awful. I had failed my family, I had failed my wife - and I felt like I had failed myself. I remember being so ashamed I told *no one* for almost 6 years.  Until I found out I wasn't the only one. Until I had close friends tell me of their troubles. I hadn't been overly irresponsible, I hadn't been buying up big TVs and junk. I was just trying to make a living, did good work - and just got caught up in bad luck.  But the shame didn't go away. And it's only now, when I know more, when I see companies declare bankruptcy, or very wealthy people do so, that I realize that yeah - I have to take care of my shit, and I do everything I can for that. But at the same time, if bad stuff happens, I shouldn't spend my life beating up on myself because I had ""shit happen.""   Shit happens. Everybody should have a second chance to try again. Learn from the mistakes you made, plan better if you can, and realize that the best laid plans of might and men oft go awry. Try again, and hopefully it'll work out better next time."

negative: There are software programs out there to do an inventory, but I haven't used them.  My wife works for an insurance company, and they have forms and specific documentation for your valuable things.  You certainly know what your big ticket items are.  For myself, I simply use my video camera and walk around the house as if I was taking a walking tour.  On the way I describe what is in each cupboard and chat about it.  If I have any idea of what it cost I say so, otherwise I don't Then I upload the video to a website I own for safe keeping.  (I have never looked at the videos a second time or told my insurance company about them.)  I don't really have much in the way of expensive items.  Mostly I take a video of my computers, electronics and my wife's jewelry box. The big point is to get an idea of what is in each room if my house burns down.  The video is supposed to make it easy for me to review and remember should a tragedy happen and I need to justify costs to my insurance company.   From my understanding, they will replace the value of the contents of my home up to a certainly value, regardless of what it is.  So I just want a quick list.

negative: I am in a very similar situation. My wife and I made decent money in the early to mid-2000's but handled the tax end of the business VERY poorly. However for the last 5 years we've been close to poverty and owing the IRS close to 60K because of the accumulated penalty and interest. On top of that, they started garnishing my wife's paycheck putting ourselves further in the whole. Finally got the courage to call them and explain the situation and was classified as a 'CNC' or Can Not Collect. Basically, there is nothing they can take from us and removed the garnish from my wife's check almost immediately. Now they will review our returns yearly and if we do start making real money again, we'll have to set up a payment agreement at that time. Also there is a 10 year limitation on them being able to collect from you so every year that passes removes another year of the past due taxes. Call them, explain your situation and see what happens. I was floored at how understanding they were and completed the paperwork over the phone that determined us to be CNC.

negative: I know my experience is anecdotal, but where I work I see this scenario playing out. Most of the people I work with, in a health care administrative role, have children *MY AGE*. In the entire corporate office  of ~50 people there is maybe 6 people in their 20's early 30's. As far as my role as an Accountant, I'm second in command at age 28. I report directly to the CFO who has a daughter my age.  These demographics seem problematic. I know my company isn't the only one that is top heavy with Baby Boomers and few Generation X or younger.

negative: "I hear you (and those answering) use the words ""my money"" (or ""me to pay for stuff"") The sooner that ends, the better off you'll both be. My wife and I do have our own checking accounts that we maintain so she can write a check without notifying me, or I can buy her a birthday/mother's day/ etc gift without it showing in the joint account, but nearly all money flows through our joint account. Before we were married, the joint bank accounts were opened as was the joint brokerage account.  You need to work on the budget as a single project and without judging. It's good that your incomes are similar, it makes the dynamics of pooling seem more fair, but for those where one spouse is making far more than the other, the impulse to 'chip in' equally towards bills leaves the lower earner with nothing.  Will your wife go back to work after a maternity leave? Once she's back, and working for a time, things will settle down a bit. There's a postpartum time that's difficult. Women who have been through it will tell you that it can be pretty bad, and the best a guy can do is be understanding and supportive. As long as you are talking ""we"" with your wife, she'll see that you are both in it together. At the risk of sounding sexist, Women's clothing needs are different than men's. I could get away with owning 5 suits which could be replaced at the rate of one per year. If not for my wife, I can see in my own daughter how clothing makes her feel good about herself, and while I'm frugal with most of our budget, my clothing questions are 2 - Will it last? & Will it match other pieces you have? Therefore, clothing gets a line item all its own in the budget.  There are a number of financial things to consider, but I see you are in the UK, so I'll generalize. In the States, there are pretax benefits to help care for a child under 13 (called a dependent care account) and for medical expenses not covered by insurance (called flexible spending account). These let you take money from your pay pretax to use for specific expenses. If UK offers similar, I invite a user to edit the detail into my answer.  Last - once the kid comes into our lives, there's little room for many of the late teen/early 20's spending. Comics? DVDs? Those are the low hanging fruit of wasted money. Saving for retirement, and for University for the kid take priority.  I'm not one to quote cliches but a friend once offered this observation - ""If you are not happy but your wife is happy, you are still far happier than if you were happy but your wife is not happy."""

negative: This would be my suggestion: I would approach the problem thinking about the loss of monthly income you (as a couple) will be facing due to your wife's change to a part time job and divide that loss between the two of you. This means that if she goes from 2200 to 1100 monthly, you'd be losing 1100 per month.  To share this loss, you could repay your wife your part of the loss (550) so both of you are 550 euro down. However, this 550 loss is a bigger burden for your wife than it is for you, so this amount could be adjusted to make up for this inequality.  To make calculations simple and avoid developing a complicated model, you could give the 800 euro above your 3k to your wife for as long as she has to work part time.

negative: "I just opened up the Roth on my own, with some savings. I was then about to roll over the old company 401(k)s, but didn't see ""Roth"" indicated on the statements for those.   All these years I've known that Roth is the way to go, and thought that's how I've been investing.........but apparently, you can only open a Roth personally, whereas the company 401(k)s are standard.   I'm currently not working so I guess that counts as ""low income year""? But we file jointly...........gahhh!"

negative: There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees.   On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match.  If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match.   On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ESPP plans and a one year hold.  My wife has such an employer.  The one year hold is fine because it allows us to be taxed at Long Term Capital gains if the stock goes up which is lower than our current income bracket.  After creating a seasoned pool of stocks that we could sell after the one year hold, we are then able to sell the same number of stocks purchased each month.  This provides a 17.6% guaranteed gain on a monthly basis.  How much would you purchase if you had a guaranteed 17.6% return.  Our answer is 15% (our maximum allowed). The other trick is that while the employer is collecting the money, you will purchase the stock at the lowest day of the period.  You will usually sell for even more than the purchase price unless the day purchased was the lowest day of month.   The trick is to reinvest the money in tax free investments to balance out the pretax investing.  Never leave the money in the plan.  That is too much risk.

negative: "First, filing status. If you and your wife are legally married, you should be filing your tax returns as married, either jointly or separately. In the US, ""head of household"" has a specific meaning and is for unmarried people who are supporting one or more relatives, per the IRS. If you are working full-time and your wife is not, then likely you will file a joint return, including all your income and all the expenses for your wife's business. So yes, the losses in her business will offset your income. Depending on how complex things are, you may want to hire a professional to help with your taxes. The rules for what can and cannot be deducted as a business expense can be opaque."

negative: It depends on where you live and how you can think out of the box on earning little extra income on the side. If  you live in North America and based on the needs in your city, you can try out these ideas. Here is what one of my friend has done,  The family has two kids and the wife started a home day care as she was already taking care of two kids anyways. Of course, she had to be qualified and she took the relevant child care classes and got certified, which took six months. And she is managing 4 kids in addition to her two kids bringing in at least 2000$ per month in addition. And my friend started a part time property management business on the side, with one client. For example there is always work on real estate whether its going up or going down. You have to be involved locally to increase your knowledge on real estate. You can be a property manager for local real estate investors. If its going down, you can get involved in helping people sell and buy real estate. Be a connector, bring the buyers and sellers together.

negative: Two of their children were adopted from an orphanage in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. My brother and his wife would rather have 4 kids raised with a high level of care in relative poverty than fewer kids raised in wealthier circumstances. I'm sure if she worked full-time and the kids attended school it would be better for them financially, but they consider homeschooling to be hugely beneficial.  Staying out of poverty is a higher priority for my wife and I, which is why we work in offices and haven't had any children yet.

negative: Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know.  In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%.  For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40.  Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense.  For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve.  Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied.

negative: "Chris, Joe's table helps.  but think this way:  there are two ways you can pay the taxes for your side-gig:  either you can send a check quarterly to the Feds, OR, you can overwithhold at your real job to cover taxes at your sidegig.  I'd do this in ""arrears"" -- after you get your first paycheck from sidegig, then adjust your real job's withholding. Except (and Joe neglected this), you're still responsible for Social Security / Medicare Tax from your sidegig.  I suspect your income at real-job is high enough that you stop paying Social Security Tax, so at least at this time of year you won't be subject to 15.4% Social Security Tax.  However, that's NOT true for the 2.9% Medicare Tax.  Remember that because you're an independent contractor being payed without withholding, YOU are responsible not only for the Medicare (and Social Security) taxes you'd be responsible for if a regular employee, but you're also responsible for what your employer's share as well."


query: Meaning of reinvestment

positive: "1) When it says ""an investment or mutual fund"", is a mutual fund not   an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions  mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains.    2) When it says ""In terms of stocks"", why does it only mention   distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says ""In terms of mutual funds"", it says about ""the   reinvestment of distributions and dividends"". Does ""distributions"" not   include distributions of ""dividends""? why does it mention   ""distributions"" parallel to ""dividends""? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to   capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well."

negative: 1: Low fees means: a Total Expense Ratio of less than 0,5%. One detail you may also want to pay attention to whether the fund reinvests returns (Thesaurierender Fonds) which is basically good for investing, but if it's also a foreign-based fund then taxes get complicated, see http://www.finanztip.de/indexfonds-etf/thesaurierende-fonds/

negative: "Remember that ""earned"" means ""earned in profit."" A company like LinkedIn may not be trying to earn any profit, because they believe that they are at the stage in their development where the best thing to do with excess cash is to reinvest it in growing the business. Therefore, profit may not be the best metric at this stage in the company's life cycle."

negative: "A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company.  The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month.  Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes.  Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance.  So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place.  If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends.    £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me.  I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the ""UK market"" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%.  Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable.  The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least."

negative: Also keep in mind that with an all-cash offer, they get their money now and not spread over X-many years, which means they can reinvest it now rather than piece meal across the term of whatever the loan would be. (Presuming the bank would be financing the house themselves.) Additionally, with an all-cash offer, there end to be fewer lawyers at the table, fewer parties total, so the process can generally proceed faster.

negative: Many brokerages offer automatic dividend reinvestment. It is very infrequent that these dividends are exactly a whole share. So, if you have signed up for automatic dividend reinvestment, many brokerages will reinvest your dividends and assign to you a fractional share. I can't speak for how these shares work with regards to voting, but I can say that the value of these fractional holdings does change with stock price as if one genuinely could hold a fraction of a share.

negative: The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained.  The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income.  You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis.  The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.

negative: Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here.  The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions.  That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc.  A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees.

negative: Their net income hangs around zero because they raise expenses as reinvestment in the company (line items like $16.09B in Research & Development expense last year).  Retained earnings is a balance sheet item reflective of assets they're holding for projects in a later fiscal period; they aren't waiting for the next period to reinvest.

negative: 3 Yes, a big yes, it cannot go into the account it came from. Then both accounts >can't be touched for a year. 3) Actually it looks like you can reinvest it in the same IRA account. Based on IRS publication 590 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch01.html You can withdraw, tax free, all or part of the assets from one traditional IRA if you reinvest them within 60 days in the same or another traditional IRA. Because this is a rollover, you cannot deduct the amount that you reinvest in an IRA.

negative: Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.

negative: well, you know the problem lies with bonds maturing. The issue is not the function COMP but the security itself. You have to use existing total return indices that reflect a constant 10yr maturity position.      >perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present?      That would mean your 10y becomes 7y, 5y, 3y, 1y, matured then you reinvest. Not the same.      Use SECF to find something like MLT1US10 Index or go to the IND page to see Merrill Lynch's bond indices. They're some of the best.

negative: The 1-yr bond has a higher interest rate, but it's only guaranteed for a year. This means it is subject to reinvestment risk.  Suppose you're investing in 1981. Which sounds better? I've not looked up the precise interest rates but I'm guessing the former option leaves you with more money in 1991. It should be no surprise that investors were willing to pay more for it++, even if they couldn't have been totally sure in advance. :) (++ Remember, a bond is like a coupon for a certain percentage off of future-money. If the coupon offers you fewer percent off, you're paying more present-money for each dollar of future-money you buy.)

negative: You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.

negative: Prices are adjusted for return and not payout.  So if you take the ratio of the close price and the adjusted close price, it should remain constant. The idea behind a total return (back-)adjustment is to give you a feeling how much money you would have needed back then to reach the price today under the premise that all distributions (dividends, spin-offs, etc.) are reinvested instantly and that reinvestment doesn't cost anything.

negative: I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel  comfortable enough providing an answer.  I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money.  A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested.  That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation?  That is a problem, period.  If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy.  If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs.  This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.

negative: Avoiding the complexities of tax [dividends likely taxed the year they are received, barring special tax accounts which many countries implement in for example, locked-in retirement type accounts; share growth is likely only taxed when sold / on death / on expatriation / similar], and assuming you reinvest the dividends every year in new shares, then yes, total growth in your account is the same whether that growth is comprised of entirely dividends, entirely share increase, or a mixture of both. It is those caveats (tax + reinvestment) which could change things.

negative: I am not sure how they do it in the Nordic countries, but here in the US a lot of company owners like myself are taxed through the corporation. So in effect, raising taxes on corporations is the same as raising taxes on the business owner. That being said, I kind of agree with the sentiment of the article. If you lower taxes on me and my company, that money is going into savings. That money isn't going to be reinvested. Our budget is where our reinvestment comes from, not extra cash at the end of the year.

negative: Tax rates do make a difference between whether to invest here or in Ireland. The rate of return would be lower in a place where you pay higher taxes, as taxes are a cost. The investment is going to happen, sure, it just depends on where that occurs.   And then secondly, the money that American businesses profit overseas stays overseas instead of being repatriated because the taxes are too high to justify paying them before reinvesting the money in the economy. This is a problem because it means jobs for everyday Americans going to another country, where due to Balassa-Samuelson, the other country is already more attractive in terms of labor costs due to our high price levels here in the US.

negative: It appears from your description that the 401k account has the automatic dividend reinvestment policy, and that the end result is exactly the same as the external account with the same policy. I.e.: no difference, the dividend affected the 401k account in exactly the same way it affected the external account. The only thing is that for external account you can take the dividend distribution, while for 401k you cannot - it is reinvested automatically. Were you expecting something else?

negative: A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.

negative: I just read the article and I'm not sure if the calculation is flawed. When they look at the single stocks. Do they always reinvest the dividends to the same stock? That would be quite unusual behaviour I think.  An investor who uses the buy and hold strategy  might have a bunch of companies which won't exist anymore in 20 or 30 years e.g. coal plants.  While many stocks are a good investment now. Reinvesting all the dividends for decades is obviously a bad decision for a large portion of the stocks.  Maybe I misunderstood the article. But what do you guys think?

negative: The thing is, corporate taxes aren't paid on revenues or costs; they're paid on net income.   Meaning no matter what happens, any investment the company makes that improves their net income automatically means more money for the company.    So let's say 12% vs 14% tax.   A 2% increase in tax means a 2% lower net ROI on the investment.    But so long as the incremental improvement to your bottom line is there, the investment is sound, with or without taxes.   EVEN at a 50% corporate tax rate.   You hire one more person at $60k/yr and they make $120k/yr in net income for you.   You still keep $30k of the profits.    It's an incremental increase regardless.  And if that person doesn't make you money?  Say the incremental benefit is 0?   Well your net income just dropped $60/yr.   And you just paid $30k less in taxes.   Meaning the true cost of that hire is $30k to your bottom line.  Where it hurts business is that your retained earnings don't build up as fast.   It makes the next investment harder to make is all.   And as a corporation, if you're not paying dividends you need to keep reinvesting your retained earnings./

negative: Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends.

negative: Edit: I a in the United States, seek advice from someone who is also in Australia.  I am getting about 5.5% per year by investing in a fund (ticker:PGF) that, in turn, buys preferred stock in banks. Preferred stock acts a bit like a bond and a bit like a stock.  The price is very stable. However, a bank account is FDIC insured (in the USA) and an investment is not. I use the Reinvestment program at Scottrade so that the monthly dividends are automatically reinvested with no commission. However I do not know if this is available outside of the United States.  Investing yealds greater returns but exposes you to greater risk. You have to know your risk tolerance.

negative: A 401-K is something you get through an employer. I recommend getting a self-directed IRA.  You can open an IRA with Scottrade with $500 The money you put into an IRA is tax deferred, meaning that you do not have to pay taxes on profits. It may also lower your tax liability.  Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends from the securities you own. This feature allows you to avoid commissions on those automatic purchases.  Don't try to time the market. Pick a good ETF (exchange traded fund) that pays dividends. It will give you diversification.  Avoid the urge to buy and sell constantly. This only gives commissions to the broker.

negative: I think what he was confused about is why EV is used if a company like Apple is going to have an EV much less than its market cap. His point was, if EV was the only way to measure the value of a firm, a company that hordes cash like APPL should be more valuable than its EV indicates.   I think he failed to take into account that hording cash means the company isn't reinvesting in itself like it should, and therefore, at the time of a transaction, when the cash exits the balance sheet, you get significantly less in terms of remaining value.   I can definitely see why people might get confused on EV though.

negative: You need to read up on how QE works. Banks are not reinvesting deposits at the Fed in Equities. They are earning interest and sitting there, hence why the velocity of any money supply measure is far below where it used to be.

negative: "Hence why keeping the capital gains tax rate down is not such a bad idea. Sure, it may benefit ""rich"" people, but it will also allow RESPONSIBLE low and middle class income families to reinvest their capital gains and accumulate more wealth."

negative: "Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't.  Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it.   2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such ""necessities"" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts.      3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out.    4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not.  5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it?  But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you?     6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google ""Dividend Aristocrats"".  7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly?  You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out."

negative: While the S&P500 is not a total return index, there is an official total return S&P500 that includes reinvested dividends and which is typically used for benchmarking.  For a long time it was not available for free, but it can currently be found on yahoo finance using the ticker ^SP500TR.

negative: It's important to remember what a share is.  It's a tiny portion of ownership of a company. Let's pretend we're talking about shares in a manufacturing company.  The company has one million shares on its register.  You own one thousand of them.  That means that you own 1/1000th of the company. These shares are valued by the market at $10 per share.  The company has machinery and land worth $1M.  That means that for every dollar of the company you own, 10c of that value is backed by the physical assets of the company.  If the company closed shop tomorrow, you could, in theory at least, get $1 back per share.  The other $9 of the share value is value based on speculation about the future and current ability of the company to grow and earn income. The company is using its $1M in assets and land to produce goods which cost the company $1M in ongoing costs (wages, marketing, raw cost of goods etc...) to produce and make $2M per year in sales.  That means the company is making a profit of $1M per annum (let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this profit is after tax). Now what can the company do with its $1M profit?  It can hand it out to the owners of the company (which means you would get a $1 dividend each year for each share that you own) or it can re-invest that money into additional equipment, product lines or something which will grow the business.  The dividend would be nice, but if the owners bought $500k worth of new machinery and land and spent another $500k on ongoing costs and next year we would end up with a profit of $1.5M. So in ten years time, if the company paid out everything in dividends, you would have doubled your money, but they would have machines which are ten years older and would not have grown in value for that entire time.  However, if they reinvested their profits, the compounding growth will have resulted in a company many times larger than it started. Eventually in practice there is a limit to the growth of most companies and it is at this limit where dividends should be being paid out.  But in most cases you don't want a company to pay a dividend.  Remember that dividends are taxed, meaning that the government eats into your profits today instead of in the distant future where your money will have grown much higher. Dividends are bad for long term growth, despite the rather nice feeling they give when they hit your bank account (this is a simplification but is generally true). TL;DR - A company that holds and reinvests its profits can become larger and grow faster making more profit in the future to eventually pay out.  Do you want a $1 dividend every year for the next 10 years or do you want a $10 dividend in 5 years time instead?

negative: Yeah that all can definitely be true as well, in fact we both 100% agree on symptoms of low growth. However personally I believe there are always ways to reinvest and build your business. I mean look at AAPL, they allocated $100~ billion into their own Nevada hedge fund buying up high quality debt like it's a fire sale. Some companies create their own VC firms combatting disruptive innovation. We can argue about this all we want but share buybacks can signify a lot of things at the end of the day haha. My main point with the comment above was that the buybacks inflating EPS makes it more difficult to identify true earnings growth of a company.   So serious question, do you know of any ways to filter that out and identify real earnings growth?