- Don't setup any automated investing through Prosper, you can use filters, but in the end you need to do a little investigating before pulling the trigger,
- Don't invest in any businesses: Most businesses go bankrupt and there is very little damage to the individual's credit (or motivation to pay off the loan) if they had it setup as an LLC.,
- Fund only smaller loans, <$3,000, as there is less chance of them falling behind.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Prosper Lending
Posted by K. P. Chadwick on Monday, February 25, 2008 0 comments
Labels: Personal Finance, Prosper
Add to Del.icio.us Stumble it!Monday, February 18, 2008
ETFs vs. Mutual Funds
- ETFs are traded throughout the day on the stock market, Mutual Funds are only bought at the close of the market. For the long term, this is not a major issue, as you can more precisely buy and sell and ETF using limit or stop orders, however with mutual funds you need to check the index performance and decide to buy or sell just prior to market close. If you are dollar cost averaging and investing for the long term, daily market swings are unlikely to cause a major difference in performance. Slight advantage to ETFs.
- ETF transactions incur a broker commission. Index mutual funds have no transaction costs. Ultra low cost brokers do exist, so this can be somewhat mitigated, but for dollar cost averaging, ETFs will cost a little more. Slight advantage to mutual funds.
- Expense ratios for each are very low. ETFs are typically slightly lower. For example, at the moment VTI (the total stock market ETF) vs. VTSMX (the total stock market mutual fund) is .07% vs .19%. Both are very low compared to actively managed funds that can be 2% or more. To see what this means for performance, I compared the total performance of each over the last 5 years. Currently they are almost identical, VTI is up 69.5%, versus 69.7% for VTSMX. So the mutual fund actually did better. This comparison will vary based on what indexes you are using and which mutual fund product.
- Tax advantage is really none. Both should have minimal distributions, since there is low turnover, and both will generate income from dividends. Capital gains are handled the same.
- Minimum investments for ETFs are one share. Often mutual funds require a few thousand dollars to open the account and then some small amount per transaction ($50 or $100). This is an advantage for ETFs for the very small investor just starting out.
- ETFs can be shorted and Options are available, so calls and puts can be used. Mutual Funds cannot do this. So for the very active trader, ETFs are a much more sophisticated product.
While ETFs and index mutual funds are quite similar, there are some advantages to each. For the long term passive investor, either will serve you well. If you are currently invested in quality index mutual funds, there is no advantage to transferring that to ETFs. If you want ultimate control and have a very low cost broker, ETFs are probably better, but don't be scared away from mutual funds. No matter which you choose, what is ultimately important is your asset allocation, and low expenses. Research has shown those factors to far outweigh market timing techniques over the long term.
Posted by K. P. Chadwick on Monday, February 18, 2008 0 comments
Labels: Personal Finance
Add to Del.icio.us Stumble it!Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Myths about the Government Stimulus Package
- This is not merely an advance on your 2008 tax returns. This is an actual rebate of $600 that is in addition to what you would have gotten. Yes you are getting it early, but it is additional money. Which is why it will cost an additional $170 billion to implement.
- The purpose of the stimulus package is to help the economy, not to help the individual. There is a lot of discussion about what is fair, where the cutoff should be, and who is wealthy. This is not meant to help the poor, unemployed, or middle class; it is meant to help the econonmy. Consumer spending drives the US economy, the main purpose is to pump money into retail and raise GDP. Unfortunately the Government can't do that itself, so it needs a proxy to do that, and that proxy is the consumer.
- Opinion: There is no better way to get the money in the hands of consumers than a check. Debit cards, gift cards, etc. cost more, are less secure, less liquid, and provide no real benefits. Changing tax rates such as payroll taxes favor the wealthier and is a logistical nightmare. Plus you need a lump sum amount, not a small amount over many weeks.
- Opinion: This stimulus package is good for votes, but will do little to stimulate the economy. Look for actual spending to increase slightly over the next few months, but it will not be sustained.
Posted by K. P. Chadwick on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 0 comments
Labels: economy
Add to Del.icio.us Stumble it!Monday, February 11, 2008
Investment Goals
In the spirit of my last post about investing for the short and long term, I decided to keep track of my current goals publicly on my blog. These only include goals outside of retirement. I listed my short and long term goals in the table and show how close I am to achieving them in the bar chart. I'll keep updating them throughout the year. I included the end target date in the name.
- The yearly investment goal includes all investements for the year
- The emergency fund is currently fully funded in a money market
- The new house fund is in a taxable Vanguard account
- The car fund is also being funded in the money market
- The college fund will be in a Vanguard 529 plan
- The new bathroom fund will be in held in a money market
I am currently contributing half of my investment money into a money market, which is building up my car fund, and half into index funds, which is building up my new house fund. My plan is to continue that way until the car fund is done, hopefully in 3 months or less. Then I will start funding the bathroom fund with the money market half. However, in July I will start investing in the College Fund with 100% of my available money, using a 529 Plan, until I reach my goal of $70,000 in 2 years or less. At that point, I will continue with the half long term investing, half short term investing allocation.
Posted by K. P. Chadwick on Monday, February 11, 2008 0 comments
Labels: Personal Finance
Add to Del.icio.us Stumble it!Sunday, February 10, 2008
Investing for the Short and Long Term
If you are planning to have a major purchase soon, using your investment money in the next 1-4 years, then your tolerance for volatility is low. Long term investment goals for 5 years or greater have a higher tolerance for volatility. I recommend splitting your investments between the two different goals.
For short term purchases and emergency funds, establish a high yield money market fund. Using something like ING Direct, Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund, or something similar. "High Yield" for a money market as of February 2008 is considered to be around 4.1%. Look for low expense ratios in the fund, less then 0.5%. I personally use Vanguard's Prime Money Market Fund. This is where you can keep your money liquid and safe, while still earning some return. If you don't need to keep the money liquid you may also consider a CD for a higher yield, however right now CDs are yielding less than money markets as interest rates are expected to continue to fall.
Long term investments for things like retirement and college should be allocated in a diverse portfolio with higher volatility. I do not consider retirement to ever be a short term investment, therefore it should always have a volatile component. Even if you are 64 and plan to retire at age 65, retirement is not a single "purchase" and needs to continue for another 20 or more years. Therefore, it is a long term investment.
Risk vs. Volatility
Determine Your Goal
My Allocation
Posted by K. P. Chadwick on Sunday, February 10, 2008 0 comments
Labels: Personal Finance
Add to Del.icio.us Stumble it!Sunday, February 3, 2008
My Super Tuesday Vote
- Taxes. They all agree to keep income taxes low, eliminate or fix the AMT, and make the current "Bush" tax cuts pernament. McCain and Romey propose to do this by keeping the current rates. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul want to do this by completely changing the tax system. Huckabee with the completely unfair FairTax, and Paul by eliminating all taxes. Neither solution would ever be supported by Congress, and thus are not realistic. Romney also would like to reduce corporate taxes. I believe these changes are necessary to keep the American economy strong and make America companies competitive, where we currently have one of the highest corporate tax rates.
- Energy. Everyone agrees we need to lower our dependence on imported oil. The best solution is massively and rapidly increasing our production of nuclear energy for electricity. Aggressively drilling for oil where it currently exists in North America (e.g., ANWR). At the same time, increasing our reasearch and use of alternative energies in our cars. However, this has to be balanced with our food supplies. Tapping into our food supply to be used as fuel causes inflation in all our food prices and may not be the best solution. All the candidates favor a strong, bold energy plan. However, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee seem to align best with my views. Ron Paul believes in free market forces to guide energy, but because of the enormous initial expense of building new plants and bringing new solutions from research to the mass market, I believe you need Government incentives. Allowing the best and cheapest solution to merely win out, means the dirtiest coal solutions may be in our future.
- Spending. The theme is low. From the extreme low preached by Ron Paul that is supported by his no income tax plan, to the more moderate levels of the other candidates. John McCain has long been working to end earmarks and proposes the line item veto. However, simply eliminating earmarks will not do it alone. In addition, no new programs should be formed and existing programs need to be scaled back. This is the root cause of where Democrats and Republicans really differ, Democrats want to help America by increasing services and spending, Republicans want to lower costs by minimizing services.
- The War. All candidates except Ron Paul want to finish the fight and come home victorious. Whether you were originally in favor of the war or not, the fact is that we are in it and need to now complete the mission. Paul may like to argue the premise of the war, but we need a President who is going to complete the job decisively and as quickly as possible. This is where John McCain has the advantage in my mind, with his experience and service. The other candidates are talking the right strategy, but are still unproven.
- Illegal Immigration. This is John McCain's weakness, having supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. The other candidates all support strong physical borders, strong screening, and an increase in agents. We need to stop providing support for illegal aliens and instead provide a more controlled immigration process and increasing the speed of the process will encourage immigrants to come in the proper way.
In addition, I like what Mitt Romney accomplished in Massachusetts on health care. To me, the religious views of the candidates are unimportant, unless those views would negatively influence the issues listed above. Remember, there still are the Congress and Courts to keep the President in check. The criticisms of "flip-flopping" have been used on both Romney and McCain so I look at that as a wash. McCain will probably win the majority of votes on Super Tuesday, however it will be interesting to see if Romney can keep it close.
Posted by K. P. Chadwick on Sunday, February 03, 2008 0 comments
Labels: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul
Add to Del.icio.us Stumble it!