What are “trailing 12-month total returns”?
( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago.  Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2.  That will give you total return over 12 months. "Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument.  The ""trailing 12-month"" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago.  So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates."
Think of your mortgage this way - you have a $130K 16 year mortgage, at 6.75%.  At 4%, the same payment ($1109 or so) will pay off the loan in 12.4 years. So, I agree with littleadv, go for a 15yr fixed (but still make the higher payment) or 10 yr if you don't mind the required higher payment. Either way, a refinance is the way to go.  Edit - My local bank is offering me a 3.5% 15 yr loan with fees totaling $2500. For the OP here, a savings of 3.25% or first year interest savings of $4225. 7 months to breakeven.  It's important not to get caught up in trying to calculate savings 15-20 years out. What counts today is the rate difference and looking at it over the next 12 months is a start. If you break even to closing costs so soon, that's enough to make the decision. "For example, Biff Spoiles started an animation studio and production developing company to produce animations -- something in the ballpark of $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. -- and he had a $12K/yearly salary. I have no clue what you mean, as others have mentioned. (I'm not sure what the ""12 million"" refers to?  Do you mean ""total cost of animations created by the company in a year"" or?  If so, ""12 million"" would amount to say 5 to 20 major, brand name TV commercials, for example.  Do you mean the ""cost of plant"" - so, for a ""TV commercial production company"" you mean purchasing desks, drawing pads, Porsches, and so on?) Your specific example of a ""film or TV-commercial production company"" is a bad example, it's not really a ""business"" - that is to say, it does not rely on capital and return on capital. The way famous ""film or TV-commercial production companies"" happens is precisely like this: A young guy/girl G (perhaps a designer or filmmaker) is working, just as you say, for a menial wage at a film company. (G got that first job perhaps out of art school.)  G gets a chance at doing a photo shoot, animation, or helping direct a TV commercial.  G does a fantastic job. Later that year, a large important animation or commercial job arrives at the company; due to the earlier excellent result, G is allowed to work on the new one. G again he does a fantastic job.  Soon, within that company, G is a highly-regarded animator or director and has attracted fame amongst colleagues and clients. Eventually, G hears of a company (XYZ Hotel) that needs a TV ad made. (Or an animation, or whatever.) G says to XYZ, look, you could spend $230,000 with a production company, and in reality they'd have me direct it anyway. I'm leaving to work independently, so I will do your job for only $190,000. In a word, XYZ says ""Yes"" and hands over a cheque for $190,000.  G spends $160,000 on the usual actors, cameramen, editing, etc, and uses 2 months of G's own time, and pockets $5000 after tax. G then doesn't get a job for a couple months, and then gets three more in the new year. Because the commercial for XYZ was so good, XYZ gave him another couple to do, for another product line. Eventually G has just enough money coming in that he ""hires"" a few freelance people for a few weeks here and there ... a cameraman, illustrator, gopher, and so on.  Eventually G has enough TV ads solidly booked G can risk actually hiring long-time friend P as a producer.  P spends most of her time actually bringing in more work - and it builds from there. Eventually. You have a very busy, well-known in the industry, TV commercial production company with many staff and endless clients (example, say, http://rsafilms.com) It might be at some point in there (say, around year three), G would like to borrow the odd million bucks to basically ""help with cashflow."" The answer to that is nothing more than ""through business contacts, G knows a wealthy dentist/whoever who is prepared to do that."" But note carefully that at that point, G's company is already very firmly established, famous for doing 20 spectacular animations/commercials, and so on.  (Note too that 999 times out of 1000 when this happens, the money evaporates and the dentist D never sees a penny back. In that case G ""apologizes"".) Only much much later once the company has many, many staff and great cashflow, could the production company actually borrow from a bank, or perhaps from ""actual investors"", which is more what you have in mind. regarding your four categories.  Numbers 1 and 3 are totally wrong; they do not work at all like you are asking. indeed the very simple answer is: ""borrow money"" to start a category 1 or 3 type of business. It's totally inconceivable. (The only exception would be if you literally just have an extremely rich Uncle, who loans you a few million to ""start an animation studio"" - which would be completely whacky.  Because in that example: company XYZ could not care less if you ""have"" an animation studio (ie: your Uncle has given you a platinum card, and you bought a building, some drawing pads, and a few dozen Macs).  XYZ just couldn't care less.  All they care about is your folio of work.  In this example, RSA would get the job  :)  ) My guess is you're thinking people somehow magically go around ""borrowing money"" to get businesses like that started.  (Your examples 1 and 3.) The simple answer is they don't and can't -  your fears are assuaged!  :)" An amended return is required for situations that impact tax owed, or your tax refund. 8606 purpose is to track non-deducted IRA deposits. I'd recommend you gather all your returns to form a paper trail, and when filing your 2016 return, show a proper 8606 as if you'd tracked it all along. You're interpreting this correctly. Furthermore, if your total tax liability is less than $1000, you can not pay estimates at all, just pay at the tax day. See this safe harbor rule in the IRS publication 17: General rule.    In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if   both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later).   Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Looked at the luv model quickly. The most likely reason is you calculated a FCF lower than the market. You have FCF decreasing due to shrinking margins over the model period. Your terminal value then has the FCF growing by 2.3% into perpetuity so that doesn't really coincide. I mean, it could but I wouldn't use it. I personally think the shrinking margin assumption going forward is a little much.   For your terminal value calc, don't you want that to be the final model year cash flow times 1 plus the terminal growth rate?    Also, I find it interesting that the risk free rate is the terminal growth rate. Any particular reasoning behind that?  It works now at the 2.3% but probably wouldn't in a different interest rate environment. Thanks very much.  12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at.  I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what.   For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account.  I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc.  I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree.  I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1% This is largely dependent on your overall investment goals. GIC's provide protection of the invested capital and a guaranteed return at the end of the term. However, in real terms, 1.4% over 18 months results in a loss of capital in real terms. This is because inflation in Canada is just about at or higher than 1.4% per year. In other words, at best, you are equalling inflation and gaining nothing in those 18 months. If their typical rate is 1.2% over 12 months, you are only gaining an additional 0.2% for the additional 6 months. You know as well as I do, 0.2% for 6 months is abysmal. If you have no use for the money in the medium to long term, you should look in to an index fund that is balanced, and diversified and more likely to get you a higher real return over the time period of a few years. Look in to: If you want to preserve the capital over the short term because you might need it after the 18 months period, the GIC is the safer and recommended option. "What he said was:  &gt;Short term returns show ""fat tails"" in their distribution.  This means that in the short run, rare events in the stock market, like huge up and downswings, happen much more often than you would expect given the circumstances.  &gt;Long term returns converge towards a gaussian distribution.   This means that long term changes in stock prices show about the level of swings you would expect to see.  &gt;The authors think there's a connection between this and the ""long memory"" of &gt;volatility (i.e. that the autocorrelation of absolute volatilities also has a fat tail).  Auto-correlation is the idea that an event is closely related, or depends upon, a previous event.  It shouldn't be a surprise that prices can depend on previous prices.  (Contrast this with a coin toss.  Each time you toss the coin, the result is independent of any previous result.)  Normally, you would use an estimate of auto-correlation to test the randomness of your time series.  Unless you have good reason to do otherwise, you use the standard normal (or Gaussian) distribution to do so.  Some previous study, or perhaps this one, may have found that the distribution of their auto-correlation estimates for volatility (change in prices)  is not normally distributed, but rather that extreme values happen more often than would be expected (fat tail).  These guys find a correlation between the short term return fat tails, the normally  distributed long term returns, and a previous finding that the auto-correlation of volatility may have fat tails, and they think that these things could be more than simply coincidence."