5/1 ARM: Lifetime cap, First Adjustment Cap, Margin, and Annual Cap?
"I hope this image is clear. A spreadsheet is how I look at these things. Unfortunately, you didn't offer the starting balance so I use $100K which makes it easy to scale. You build a simple spreadsheet and enter the ""what if"" scenario, this tells me that worse case, an increase of 1% on the rate each year results in a near 60% increase in payments over the 10 years.  Of course, this isn't the end of the story, I'd first change the payments to reflect the 5% rate, and see how much that drives the balance down. This would reduce the principal enough that the increase would be much less. On $100K, you'd pay $536.82 based on a 5% rate, regardless of the required payment. At 7.75% the payment is $563.11, not even 5% higher.  If you'd like a spreadsheet started for you, I'll put it someplace for you to grab it." You quote a rate (2.75%) and then quote a margin (1.75%).  The margin is usually an addition to some base rate.  How is the margin expressed in the figures you have?  Is it included in the rate, or in addition to it? As for the other stuff, it looks like the rate can go up at most 1% per year, up to a maximum of 5% increase.  The first adjustment cap is also 1%.  That just says that your first rate increase is capped the same as subsequent increases. If the margin is already included, and the increases are based on your initial rate, then this puts you at a maximum of 7.75%. You must verify this.  I don't have your loan documents. And again, why would you want to risk an increase at all?  You have a decent fixed-rate mortgage already.  That still doesn't make sense to me.  Going from 2.75% to 7.75% as above can increase your monthly payment by over 40%. "Interest rates are at a record low and the government is printing money. You can get a fixed rate loan at a rate equal to inflation in a healthy economy. Unless you know that you are moving in < 5 years, why would you expose yourself to interest rate risk when rates are about as close to zero as they can be? If your thought with respect to mitigating interest rate risk is: ""What's the big deal, I'll just refinance!"", think again, because in a market where rates are climbing, you may not be able to affordably refinance at the LTV that you'll have in 5-7 years.  From 1974-1991, 30 year mortgages never fell below 9%, and were over 12% from 1979 to 1985. Think about what those kinds of rates -- which reduce a new homeowner's buying power by over 40%, would do to your homes value." If the base rate is USD LIBOR, you can compute this data directly on my website, which uses futures contracts and historical data to create interest rates scenarios for the calculations: http://www.mortgagecalculator3.com/ If your rate index is different, you can still create your own scenarios and check what would happen to your payments.
No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain.  Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do. Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony).  You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income.  In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA.    The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44.  In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount. "Historically, the market's average rate of return has been about 8%. (Serakfalcon's ""6% to 10%"" is essentially the same number.) You should be able to get into that range for long-term investments with minimal risk. ""5 or 6 companies"", unless you know a heck of a lot about those companies, is fairly high risk. If any one of those runs into trouble, a considerable amount of your net investment is riding on it. Of course if any of them invents the Next Big Thing you could hit it big; that's the tradeoff. Diversification isn't sexy, but it buffers you from single-company disasters, and if you diversify across kinds of investment that buffers you from single-sector disasters. Index funds aren't sexy, but they're a low-cost way to diversify, especially if you go with a mix of funds in different categories (large cap, small cap, bond, international, real estate) or a fund which has that mix built into it such as a target date fund." "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/climate/california-climate-policy-cap-trade.html) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Per capita, California has the third-lowest emissions in the nation, after New York and the District of Columbia, which means further cuts will come less easily than they would for a state like Texas.  &gt; While no one is exactly sure how much California&amp;#039;s climate policies will ultimately cost, this ceiling will set a limit on that price tag: If climate policy poses too severe a threat to economic growth, the state will prioritize growth.  &gt; What the World Might LearnMr. Brown has promoted California&amp;#039;s policies as a way of convincing the world that the United States won&amp;#039;t abandon the fight against climate change, even after Mr. Trump announced a withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6pqq7x/california_is_going_far_beyond_other_states_on/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~176290 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **state**^#1 **California**^#2 **emissions**^#3 **climate**^#4 **cap**^#5" Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Lottery Tickets notes the work of Fama and French who researched the idea of a small-cap premium along with a value premium that may be useful to note in terms of what has outperformed if one looks from 1926 to present. Slice and dice would also be another article about an approach that over weights the small-cap and value sides of things if you want another resource here. I need to see the policy you are referring to give a more accurate answer. However what could be happening, it’s again the way these instruments are structured; For example if the insurance premium is say 11,000 of which 1000 is toward expenses and Term insurance amount. The Balance 10,000 is invested in growth. The promise is that this will grow max of 9.5% and never below zero. IE say if we are talking only about a year, you can get anything between 10,000 to 10,950.  The S & P long-term average return is in the range of 12 -15% [i don't remember correctly] So the company by capping it at 9.5% is on average basis making a profit of 2.5% to 5.5%. IE in a good year say the S & P return is around 18%, the company has pocketed close to 9% more money;   On a bad year say the Index gave a -ve return of say 5% ... The Insurance company would take this loss out of the good years. If say when your policy at the S & P for that year has given poor returns, you would automatically get less returns.  Typically one enters into Life Insurance on a long term horizon and hence the long term averages should be used as a better reference, and going by that, one would make more money just by investing this in an Index directly. As you whether you want to invest in such a scheme, should be your judgment, in my opinion I prefer to stay away from things that are not transparent. The solution is x = 8.92. This assumes that Chuck's six years of deposits start from today, so that the first deposit accumulates 10 years of gain, i.e. 20*(1 + 0.1)^10.  The second deposit gains nine years' interest: 20*(1 + 0.1)^9 and so on ...    If you want to do this calculation using the formula for an annuity due, i.e. http://www.financeformulas.net/Future-Value-of-Annuity-Due.html  where  (formula by induction) you have to bear in mind this is for the whole time span (k = 1 to n), so for just the first six years you need to calculate for all ten years then subtract another annuity calculation for the last four years.  So the full calculation is:  As you can see it's not very neat, because the standard formula is for a whole time span.  You could make it a little tidier by using a formula for k = m to n instead, i.e.  So the calculation becomes  which can be done with simple arithmetic (and doesn't actually need a solver). I have been following some of these threads. Some of them are really old. I have read used recording to equity accounts to resolve the imbalance USD issue. The thing I noticed is that all my imbalances occur when paying bills. I took all the bills and set them up as vendor accounts, entered the bills in the new bills, and used the process payment when paying bills. The imbalance issue stopped. It makes sense. The system is a double entry. That's it will credit and debit. Assets accounts are increased with a debit and decreased with a credit. Equity accounts are increased with a credit and decreased with a debit. ie; Say you have an monthly insurance bill for $100. You enter it into the new vendor bill. This credits Accounts Payable. When paying the bill it credits checking, debits account payable, credits vendor account, debits the expense insurance. In short for each credit there has to be a debit for the books to balance. When there is no account for it to record to it will record in Imbalance USD to balance the books.