|
Attention 80k, I've got a few more questions for you: 1. What online broker do you use? What do you think of Scottrade? I'm looking for an uber-cheap (but not disreputable/lovely) discount broker. Do you know anything about rock-bottom cheap brokers like Zecco and Tradeking? If so, do you like them? 2. What is your opinion of directly buying bonds (opposed to buying bond ETFs/mutual funds)? Is there an advantage of doing so? Ravarek fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Jan 25, 2009 |
#
?
Jan 25, 2009 12:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Raverek, 1. I use Vanguard's brokerage services. However, the fees are not cheap unless you qualify for a higher tiered service level. For smaller sized accounts, I wouldn't recommend them. I've never used Scottrade, but have used Firstrade. Never used Zecco or Tradeking. But I know a few people that use Wells Fargo, as they get 100 free trades a year, as long as they have $25,000 with them. 2. I directly buy treasuries at auction or on the secondary market. But I do not buy corporates or muni's individually. It's tough to get adequate diversity with corporates, and Vanguard's short-term investment grade fund is tough to beat. You could buy AAA muni's individually, but only if you really understand bonds, and can hold them to maturity (as they are less liquid securities). I'd keep it simple and just use ETF's and funds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2009 19:02
|
|
|
Scott's Trade has been nothing but great for me. Very friendly, straightforward and trouble free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2009 19:31
|
|
|
80k posted:Raverek, What did you think of Firstrade?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2009 08:54
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time understanding how compound interest works in my fund(Vanguard Target Retirement 2045) for my Roth IRA. As a basis, I am comparing the fund to my taxable savings account with HSBC. I have XXXX amount of money and I get 2.6% in interest which gets added to the total. That is simple and easy for me to understand.I do not receive dividends for my fund, therefore my IRA is valued at the what the fund is currently valued. My question is, if I am not receiving dividends how exactly is interest compounding in my account? 80k, I agree that the Vanguard retirement funds are not conservative enough, what do you think about having a 80-20 Roth with a Mutual Fund? Thanks. kys fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Jan 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2009 13:30
|
|
|
The share price changes over time, hopefully upward. If it's worth more when you sell it than when you bought it, you have capital gains (not interest earnings).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2009 16:14
|
|
|
kys posted:I'm having a hard time understanding how compound interest works in my fund(Vanguard Target Retirement 2045) for my Roth IRA. As a basis, I am comparing the fund to my taxable savings account with HSBC. I have XXXX amount of money and I get 2.6% in interest which gets added to the total. That is simple and easy for me to understand.I do not receive dividends for my fund, therefore my IRA is valued at the what the fund is currently valued. My question is, if I am not receiving dividends how exactly is interest compounding in my account? Vanguard target retirement funds do pay dividends (I think once a year at the end of the year). In an IRA, these dividends would be immediately reinvested in more shares of the fund, so it ends up working kind of like interest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2009 19:17
|
|
|
80k and other more risk-averse people, what do you think about the balanced life strategy funds at Vanguard as an alternative to the Target Retirement funds? I've been reading Bernstein lately and have decided that I'm going to move out of Target Retirement to try to get lower standard deviation. These funds are: VASGX - Around 80% Equity 20% Debt VSMGX - Around 60% Equity 40% Debt VSCGX - Around 40% Equity 60% Debt One thing I'm not sure about is that a hunk of each of these funds is put into the Vanguard Asset Allocation Fund (VAAPX) which adjusts its asset mix based on computer modeling or something to try to achieve higher long-term returns. For example this allocation fund is now 100% equities (which makes sense) but I'm interested in hearing what everyone thinks about it. IIRC Bernstein says not to really adjust your asset mix and these funds do just that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2009 20:41
|
|
|
So I went ahead and opened a Roth IRA with Vanguard For now I just put in the $5000 total for 2008 and put $4000 in the Target 2050 Retirement Fund and $1000 in the STAR Fund for the moment. Just curious if there any other good funds I should be researching when starting out with such a low account balance. I'll probably be dumping my $5000 in for 2009 within the next 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 18:03
|
|
|
Koirhor posted:So I went ahead and opened a Roth IRA with Vanguard The Target Retirement Fund is decent if you just want to set your retirement money on auto-pilot.. Target Retirement funds aren't perfect, but they get the job done. However, I do think the Vanguard STAR fund is somewhat lovely; the STAR fund is pretty much a diarrhea of a dozen other (seemingly random) Vanguard funds. I suggest moving your money out of the STAR fund and throwing the $1,000 into the TR 2050 fund.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 21:04
|
|
|
Ravarek posted:The Target Retirement Fund is decent if you just want to set your retirement money on auto-pilot.. Target Retirement funds aren't perfect, but they get the job done. However, I do think the Vanguard STAR fund is somewhat lovely; the STAR fund is pretty much a diarrhea of a dozen other (seemingly random) Vanguard funds. I suggest moving your money out of the STAR fund and throwing the $1,000 into the TR 2050 fund. Thanks for the heads up, I will do that once the bank transfers go through, I'm not sure if I can move the money before it's actually there yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 21:24
|
|
|
mcsuede posted:I'm looking for opinions my RothIRA. Right now I'm: Too high in Bond Fund of America, lower to 20% and put in the rest into a domestic Growth and Income mutual fund. By the way, I'm a licensed financial advisor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 01:04
|
|
|
I have a few thousand dollars of inheritance to invest, and besides some individual stocks I plan to hold long-term (as in, a year would be a short time) I was thinking of putting the rest in mutual funds. I already have about the same amount in bonds at TreasuryDirect. Again, these are long-term investments, so I'm looking at the more growth/higher risk funds. From the funds offered by ING Direct, the Midcap Opportunities Fund (NMCOX), Global Science and Technology Fund (IDTOX), and Index Plus SmallCap Fund (IDSOX) seem most interesting to me. What do I want to take into account when setting allocation between these? I was thinking of just putting $1000 in each, the minimum required to invest. But they also offer a $100 automatic investment plan instead of putting it all down at once -- given the current market conditions, would this be a better idea in the short run?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2009 02:03
|
|
|
80k, I have a philosophical question for you.. While I agree with common wisdom that the equity exposure in one's portfolio should include a portion of international stocks, I sometimes feel that international stocks don't really offer a diversification benefit to an investor's portfolio. Allow me to be more specific: it seems that the returns of any broad-based international index are highly correlated to the returns of the U.S. stock market. While a lot of people seem to think that international equities provide a diversification benefit, I see international stocks as a simply more aggressive asset sub-class of equity. It seems to me that commodities (which are often looked down upon) serve more of a diversification purpose than international stocks. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you think international stocks offer a diversification benefit (i.e. lower the overall beta in one's portfolio) or do you think international equity serves another purpose in one's portfolio?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2009 21:43
|
|
|
Yes, I think international offers a huge diversification benefit, but I try not to think of it in terms of betas and portfolio optimizations. I also think those studies that suggest maximum diversification at, say, 20% international are completely misguided. The idea of treating your home country as a base, and sprinkling "the rest of the world" like a spice that improves the flavor of the portfolio only works through backtesting. It also only works on selected countries (including the United States). It obviously didn't work well in Japan, and it also didn't work well in countries where their entire stock markets went to zero. You are certainly right that non-equities (like commodities, bonds, and real estate) are better diversifiers of equities than other equities. But that doesn't mean you should just put all or most of your equities in a single basket. I would simply hold approximately the market weight of international and US (around 50-60% international would be about right, I think). Also, I think that you're wrong to see international as a more aggressive sub-class of equities. Fund families (like Vanguard and Fidelity) make this mistake of putting international equities further out on the risk/return spectrum, due to the additional beta that currency fluctuations (a zero sum exposure that offers no risk premium) provide. But that is a very elementary way of defining risk, and it's flat out wrong in regards to associating it with higher return (i.e. "aggressiveness"). Also, international can't always be riskier than domestic (as the definition of domestic changes depending on where you reside, and the US is not special and valuations change and new risks are always showing up). I think portfolio theory enthusiasts really have divorced themselves from understanding the real nature of equities, and the risks associated with them. Consider that Markowitz devoted his career to studying portfolio optimization, but at the end of the day, he ended up dividing his portfolio evenly (50/50) between stocks and bonds, cuz he couldn't think of a better way. I feel the same way with international stocks. Spread your eggs around, and understand that past performance and backtesting is more likely to fool you than to help you, if you draw the wrong conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2009 23:31
|
|
|
And that's the beauty of owning the entire world capitalization weighted market, the entire aggregate lending market, and a broad basket of commodities. I don't see an optimization that doesn't rely on backtesting bias that is intuitively better than that. Another caveat being, you are risking quite a bit of money on a 4% real return rate when you could be going on trips and seeing strange new worlds instead of dying of cancer at 62 and having a horde of cash to leave to either no one or retarded irresponsible step children
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2009 01:56
|
|
|
The Noble Nobbler posted:And that's the beauty of owning the entire world capitalization weighted market, the entire aggregate lending market, and a broad basket of commodities. Or medical research in the next 40 years cures many cancers, suddenly your 90 and have ran out of money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2009 13:18
|
|
|
80k posted:stuff As always, 80k, your responses are very insightful. While I do agree with you that the equity exposure in one's portfolio should include a lot of international stocks (40%+), I still feel that broad-based international indices are still highly correlated with the U.S. stock market.. at least for now, with the U.S. still the "dominant" force in the world. However, I do think things will change if the U.S. slips from economic superpower status. What are your thoughts on commodity ETFs (gold, oil, silver, etc.)? Do you think individual investors should stay away from them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2009 21:12
|
|
|
Ravarek posted:As always, 80k, your responses are very insightful. While I do agree with you that the equity exposure in one's portfolio should include a lot of international stocks (40%+), I still feel that broad-based international indices are still highly correlated with the U.S. stock market.. at least for now, with the U.S. still the "dominant" force in the world. However, I do think things will change if the U.S. slips from economic superpower status. There's always international small caps and emerging markets too, so you don't need to stick with broad-based international indices. Yes, the key is the high correlation between US and international can change fast. You don't know what kind of surprises are awaiting us. I don't have any statistics off the top of my head, but you may be surprised to learn that international investing (investing outside ones' home country) was very popular amongst Europeans and Americans a century or so ago. Home country bias today may actually be stronger than it was in the past, despite the ease of international investing now (highly liquid ETF's and mutual funds galore). So global diversity is actually a more timeless strategy, and the right way to go going forward, imo. As for commodities, I think it's a good way to diversify. There are collateralized commodity futures (like PCRIX or DBC), and individual commodities like gold, silver, and oil, like you mention. I think real assets make a lot of sense when you have more money. If you are rich, I think it's a good idea to take a portion of your paper assets, and purchase real assets that hold their value, preferably things that you are interested in (like a serious hobby) or make you happy: like art, antique furniture, fine jewelry, numismatics, gems, or precious metal bullion. It's just another way to preserve your wealth. There are no paper assets that are immune from systemic or political risks, so I think it's ok and probably wise to get a bit more creative in diversifying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2009 22:31
|
|
|
I am in need of some advice. I am a 28 year-old graduate student with 2-3 years to go (yay experimental dissertation!). For that time I will be making gently caress-all nothing and because my job requires I travel frequently and work long hours another job is out of the question. Last year was a banner year, I got a scholarship (which my department is no longer eligible for) and a 2nd job while I could and almost tripled my income. With that extra money I paid off half my student loans (I get paid to go to school now) and threw a bunch of money into a Roth IRA right before the market took a poo poo, I'm down nearly 36%. I also spent some on a badly needed vacation. Any who here is my current situation: liabilities: 12800 @ 3.61% Student Loans - I'm in school so I don't have to make payments 3300 owed to Uncle Sam (my scholarship had no tax money taken out so I owe it all now, I put money aside to help cover this) assets: 6000 @ 4.00% HSBC CD expires on 04/14 2600 @ 2.45% HSBCDirect savings 4700 in a Roth IRA - Vanguard STAR fund 1000 in a Trad. IRA - with some Fidelity international fund I put this in the retirement thread because I have three options at the moment, as I see it: 1) The economy is in the shitter and prices are low so I should double down on my Roth IRA, when the CD expires put as much as I can into the Vanguard (different fund!) Roth IRA. The problem is that if things get worse (and the rule of gently caress Mickey Finn applies here) I won't be able to take advantage of dollar cost averaging. 2) Slow play the CD money by investing a fraction of it over the next 4-6 months (after April 15th). For example, 1000 in April, 1000 in May, and so on. 3) Say gently caress it and get off the roller coaster. When my CD term is up cash out a large fraction of my Roth IRA and take all the money and pay down my student loans even more, I think I can cut the current amount in half with plenty left over for savings. I'm torn between 1 & 3 right now. 1 seems like what a rational person would do, save to retire and just wait out the storm. But I am very pessimistic about what my money is going to do while I'm working toward graduation, it is a significant portion of my net worth and seeing it go down is not fun. I am also very tempted to pay off as much of my debt as possible, graduating debt free (or nearly so) will allow me to be more picky about my first job in a potentially down economy (like I said pessimism). Any and all advice, thoughts, or rants are welcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2009 19:48
|
|
|
When I started my roth IRA I put all my money into Vanguard's 2050 target retirement fund. My plan was to build my own portfolio with 4 or 5 funds once I got enough money to diversify. Right now I have a little over $7,000 and have not contributed for 2009 yet. Since most of my money was put into the IRA before the market went to crap, my shares aren't worth what they were when I bought them. Would it be wise to wait until the market rebounds to build my own portfolio? My shares were worth $18-20 when I bought them and now they are about $14. If so, should I keep investing in the target retirement fund, or put my 2009 contributions in bonds?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 03:47
|
|
|
ZeroAX posted:When I started my roth IRA I put all my money into Vanguard's 2050 target retirement fund. My plan was to build my own portfolio with 4 or 5 funds once I got enough money to diversify. Right now I have a little over $7,000 and have not contributed for 2009 yet. Since most of my money was put into the IRA before the market went to crap, my shares aren't worth what they were when I bought them. You can't predict the market. You're buying much more business for your buck today than last year! I'd suggest doing your reading (from OP), and staying the course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 21:22
|
|
|
I cannot honestly think of a better investment allocation than half in an aggregate weighting of bonds and half in all world capitalization weighted equities. Anything else relies on assumptions on equity vs. fixed income returns as well as "domestic stock" bias.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2009 23:23
|
|
|
What is the feasibility of substituting a junk bond etf for the equity portion of my portfolio? Paging 80k to threadid 2892928 (or anyone else really) =)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 18:30
|
|
|
The Noble Nobbler posted:What is the feasibility of substituting a junk bond etf for the equity portion of my portfolio? Junk bonds are hybrid securities, that are both bond-like and equity-like. So I assume you understand that if you started with a 50/50 stock/bond portfolio, and wanted to use junk bonds instead of stocks, and wanted to keep the same risk profile, you would need a higher junk bond allocation... Off the top of my head, maybe something like 65/35 junk/non-junk. Is this what you're talking about? I would only recommend this strategy if you are experienced in analyzing securities, and have determined that you can get higher or equal returns with less risk by doing this, and that conditions that would warrant such a strategy are temporary. It is perfectly possible that such inefficiencies exist, and that the junk bond market is offering better risk-adjusted returns than stocks. In fact, it is very possible that we are in such a period. However, if you are a relatively passive investor, and want to use this as a permanent strategy, I think it is a bad idea. You are taking on significant liquidity risk with too large a portion of your portfolio. You are likely underdiversified, globally, unless you start getting into foreign bonds. Junk also have negative skewness in returns and fat tails, very bad characteristics for investors. Returns are limited by yield (often reduced by call/clawback provisions), but when risks show up, returns can be disastrous (see last year). Junk also provides their incremental risk premium in the form of taxable income, which makes them very tax inefficient securities for those that have limited tax sheltered space in their portfolio. These are characteristics that make them inappropriate for individual investors. Assets can be accurately priced but inappropriate to the risk preferences of most individuals. Junk fits such a description, and this is why mean variance and efficient frontier/mean-variance should not be overly relied upon when designing a portfolio. Stocks allow you to more broadly diversify across the globe, are far more tax efficient, and have a more balanced distribution of returns (possibility of outsized returns on the positive as well as the negative side). Doing less equity, and more safe-bonds (rather than more junk and less safe bonds), you are achieving similar risk-adjusted returns (if risk is defined by volatility), but higher drawdown (due to skewness of returns on the negative side) and higher liquidity risks and tax burden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
It would be in a taxable account. I consider myself below average at analyzing securities at the moment (and this is being fair, I typically low-ball my aptitude but it's served me well so far) Thanks for the advice
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
Have REITs now fallen so far that it would actually make sense to add them to your portfolio? Vanguards REIT (VGSIX) is yielding over 10% right now. Does that really reflect junk-bond levels of risk?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2009 15:42
|
|
|
I was wondering, how does inflation impact the real rate of return for equities? It seems fairly simple for something like a savings account -- during inflationary periods, a bank offers higher nominal interest rates to compensate for inflation. For something like stocks, I'm not so sure. I'm trying to separate the effects of inflation from the degree of risk; is that even a valid statement? For instance, I imagine inflation could manifest itself through increased dividend payments, which, if reinvested, would have the overall effect of increasing the value of a portfolio. But I am also wondering how inflation effects the price of the actual equity. Does a stock that was $10 today tend to drift upward toward $11 to keep pace with inflation, or does that imply an intrinsic value that simply can't be determined in a vacuum? I hope these are valid questions, but I could be completely misunderstanding things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2009 21:05
|
|
|
PIPBoy 2000 posted:Have REITs now fallen so far that it would actually make sense to add them to your portfolio? Vanguards REIT (VGSIX) is yielding over 10% right now. Does that really reflect junk-bond levels of risk? In my opinion, absolutely (to adding them). They are nicely non-correlating and are now priced at a level that pays you for its risk
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2009 21:24
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I was wondering, how does inflation impact the real rate of return for equities? It seems fairly simple for something like a savings account -- during inflationary periods, a bank offers higher nominal interest rates to compensate for inflation. For something like stocks, I'm not so sure. I'm trying to separate the effects of inflation from the degree of risk; is that even a valid statement? For instance, I imagine inflation could manifest itself through increased dividend payments, which, if reinvested, would have the overall effect of increasing the value of a portfolio. But I am also wondering how inflation effects the price of the actual equity. Does a stock that was $10 today tend to drift upward toward $11 to keep pace with inflation, or does that imply an intrinsic value that simply can't be determined in a vacuum? Equities are a claim to real assets, so there is an element of inflation-hedging involved in equities, which can be especially pronounced with leveraged businesses. However, it is minute compared to the negative effects that inflation has on equities: increased business risk and increased borrowing costs (nominal and real interest rates go up). Thus, unexpected rise in inflation should have a net negative effect on the value of a business. You can't separate the effects of inflation from the degree of risk, since uncertainty in prices is one of the major risks that businesses face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
80k posted:Equities are a claim to real assets, so there is an element of inflation-hedging involved in equities, which can be especially pronounced with leveraged businesses. However, it is minute compared to the negative effects that inflation has on equities: increased business risk and increased borrowing costs (nominal and real interest rates go up). Thus, unexpected rise in inflation should have a net negative effect on the value of a business. Thanks. If you don't mind a followup question, what would be the general strategy if one simply wants to beat inflation? Less risky investments, like a money market account?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2009 22:37
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Thanks. If you don't mind a followup question, what would be the general strategy if one simply wants to beat inflation? Less risky investments, like a money market account? A money market account will barely beat inflation before taxes, and will underperform inflation after taxes (unless it's in an IRA). On the other hand, money market and short-term bonds are really the only reasonable way to keep up with inflation over the short-term (other than I-bonds, which also pay next to nothing). There is no general strategy, as it depends on whether the goal is to hedge or to beat. If you want to beat inflation, an equity-heavy portfolio is one way to go. Equities don't respond well to inflation, so your expectation of beating inflation is based on the equity risk premium. This is a reasonable strategy if you can afford the risk. If you want to hedge inflation, then TIPS would be one way, although the CPI-U obviously will not perfectly match your personal inflation rate. A mixture of TIPS, commodity futures, and real estate would probably be ideal for a longterm inflation-hedging portfolio. If you have millions, your options will expand (like managed timber). But again, these are longterm strategies. Really, I think the best way to go for individuals of average wealth is a reasonable chunk of equities (like 40-50%), about 5% in commodity futures, 25-30% in TIPS, and the rest in short-term bonds/cash-like securities. This is pretty much my portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2009 23:23
|
|
|
80k posted:A money market account will barely beat inflation before taxes, and will underperform inflation after taxes (unless it's in an IRA). On the other hand, money market and short-term bonds are really the only reasonable way to keep up with inflation over the short-term (other than I-bonds, which also pay next to nothing). I'm really just trying to internalize some of these concepts for myself. I know that one wants to move into safer investments as one gets older. I would characterize this as "preserving capital," and not necessarily the same thing as beating inflation. But then I started to wonder if the former implies the latter. Going by your answer, I don't think that's the case. Thanks again, that helps to give me a sense of what might happen if I pulled some of the different levers in a hypothetical portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I'm really just trying to internalize some of these concepts for myself. I know that one wants to move into safer investments as one gets older. I would characterize this as "preserving capital," and not necessarily the same thing as beating inflation. But then I started to wonder if the former implies the latter. Going by your answer, I don't think that's the case. Thanks again, that helps to give me a sense of what might happen if I pulled some of the different levers in a hypothetical portfolio. The idea of preserving capital is in regards to its real value, and so inflation certainly needs to be accounted for. Retirees are exposed to serious inflation risks, and they also cannot deal with too much volatility in their portfolios. As a result, they need to consider locking in a stream of income from real-returning securities (like TIPS and I-bonds). Short-term bonds and money markets also do a reasonable job of keeping up with inflation, while providing the immediate liquidity that TIPS and I-bonds do not have. And a small portion of their wealth could still be in equities (globally diversified), for diversification purposes, which hopefully outpaces inflation over time. There is no magic formula, as we need to simultaneously address many different risks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2009 03:10
|
|
|
I don't know if this is the right thread to ask in, but think it kind of fits. I went to my banks site today to check my statements, and noticed that they have a program called a change-up savings account. Pretty much, every purchase I make on my debit card gets rounded up to the next dollar, and the difference will be automatically deposited into my Change-Up Savings account that earns a special savings rate. I use my debit card for every transaction, instead of cash, and this seems like a good way to save some extra money. The rate is at 3.72%, regular savings is at .45 so it is a lot higher. The only thing is that I cannot deposit into this account, the only money going in is the rounded amount. Is there any reason to avoid this kind of account at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2009 15:21
|
|
|
Harminoff posted:I don't know if this is the right thread to ask in, but think it kind of fits. It sounds phenomenal, so I'd look into if there are any restrictions on it (besides the usual withdrawal limits on a savings account), but otherwise, I can't imagine there being a ton of drawbacks. (Unless you're the sort of person who's going to post another thread about how MY STUPID BANK OVERDRAFTED ME AND NOW THEY'RE CHARGING FEES WTF BANKS ARE SUCH BULLSHIT!!!!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2009 18:41
|
|
|
I've never overdrafted, buy even if I did they autotake the money from my savings, no charge. The account says it doesn't need to keep a minimum balance at all, just acts like a savings account. The rate seems really good, but with not being able to deposit, won't it take a very very long time to see any profit? actually, I found this. If your Visa Debit card purchase is subsequently returned, cancelled or reversed, the corresponding Change Up Savings transfer will remain in your Change Up Savings account. There is no service charge for this account. Dividends are calculated on daily balance and compounded and credited to your account quarterly. The dividend rate and annual percentage yield may change at our discretion. Account Limitations. No deposits are permitted to the Change Up Savings account. Only Change Up transfers are allowed into this account.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2009 19:07
|
|
|
Harminoff posted:I've never overdrafted, buy even if I did they autotake the money from my savings, no charge. The account says it doesn't need to keep a minimum balance at all, just acts like a savings account. I guess ultimately it sounds like it's just something to get you to use your visa debit more, thus getting visa it's commissions. But hey if there's no restrictions on withdrawals then go nuts. I have a hard time imagining how you'd get a substantial balance in there though, even if you said "I get a dollar every time I use the card" do you really use the card that often in a week? On the other hand Visa likes it's promotions so may offer other ways to increase the balance in the future but of course there's no guarantee that'll happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2009 20:42
|
|
|
I'd check to make sure there aren't any account fees. The versions of this I've seen at other banks charge a $10-20 monthly maintenance fee for the savings account. As NZAmoeba said, even if you use your debt card for all your purchases, you will probably only get $15 at most each month.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Yeah I understand it wouldn't be much in a month, but hey think long term! I do use my debit for everything though, I never carry cash. When I did, I would always lose the change, so that's why this interested me so much. I submitted a form to them, and they will be calling me back in the next few days. So I'll ask about the monthly charges, if any. This is a credit union though, and everything I have done with them so far has been better then expected. If it has no monthly charge, I think I'll sign up. I have a three year old, so I plan on just keeping it open until her 18th if I can for her. Should have a pretty good amount in 15 years I'd think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2009 05:37
|
|