/biz/ - Business & Finance

Patent law and other areas that require technical degrees in addition to a law degree often have the highest billing rates.

Corporate law, specifically venture capital and securities work, can be the most lucrative because you are often given the opportunity to co-invest with your clients.

Class action plaintiffs attorneys can make huge fortunes (tabacco lawyers, asbestos lawyers, etc.) but most will go their whole career without even getting a good case, let alone winning the "big one."

>>887927
>What's the difference between DUI and OUI
Most states have updated their laws so that the violation occurs if you are intoxicated (however they choose to define it) and are in control of a motor vehicle. You don't have to be actually driving to be arrested and convicted. If you're in the front seat and have car keys on you, you've committed a crime.

Some states changed the name of their law to reflect this (Operating Under the Influence). Some states kept the old name (Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Impaired). There are other variations too. At the end of the day, DUI, DWI, and OUI are all referring to the same basic offence, whoever the state chooses to define it.

>>887555
>what if its under 600 dollars, man? I read something that if its under 600 you dont need to.

The $600 is for exempt employees. You're an independant contractor. Unless you can prove that you're tax exempt (which you won't be able to do) you have to submit the form.

>also, ive heard of EIN numbers, that you can use those instead of your social...
EINs are for incorporated entities, like corporations and LLCs. You're free to form one if you wish, then apply for an EIN, then give the EIN to the company (assuming they haven't replaced you in the meanwhile). Probably not very smart since you may face double taxation, but its a free country.

If you want to get paid, you'll need to complete the W-9. The company is required by law to request it, and you're required by law to provide it. If you don't, you won't be paid. Period.

http://www.irs.com/articles/fill-out-irs-tax-form-w-9

Google the website of the bar association for the state you live in (e.g., "California Bar Association"). Most bar associations offer referral services to connect the public with attorneys that specialize in certain areas of law. This will include attorneys that specialize in DWI cases (or whatever its called in your state).

The bar association referral does not mean you're getting the best lawyer or the right lawyer for you. It means your getting a licensed, regulated attorney. Nothing more, nothing less. But I consider it a more credible source than attorney advertising or word of mouth. Feel free to have initial consultations with more than one until you find a lawyer you feel comfortable with in terms of experience, expertise, and rates.

>>886712
>My investment portfolio is hovering around the mid 7 figures these days. How's yours doing?
Kek Next time you want to play the "I'm rich" card remember that there's always someone with a lot more than you. In this case, that someone is me.

>>857366
>How is nickel-and-diming your way to success working out?
Pretty well, actually. Thanks for asking.

>>855180
(cont.)

INSIDE a tax-advantaged account, you don't suffer the tax hit when dividends are declared. You get to reinvest the full amount. Therefore, inside a tax-advantaged account, growth and distributions both add EQUALLY to your growth and your compounding. So what you should be focused on is maximizing your overall return (growth PLUS dividends) instead of focusing on one or the other.

This is the mistake that >>854742 is making. He's focused on yield (dividends or interest) inside his tax-advantaged account even though he doesn't need the income. He admits that he's accepting a lower overall return, but he "likes" the cash. What he fails to recognize is that inside his tax-advantaged account, there's no benefit to that cash as compared to growth. They are equivalent. So he should be focused on maximizing his aggregate return, and not obsess over high yields

Hope that was clearer.

>>855180
>Are you saying "compounding dividend" appreciation loses out to "rising stock price" appreciation? Or are they similar, but taxed differently?

OUTSIDE a tax-advantaged account, a dividend stock will lose out to a growth stock over time because the dividends are taxable as long-term capital gains. This eats into your investment capital, and saps your compounding.

Consider two equivalent stocks -- a growth stock (Stock G) and a high-dividend stock (Stock D) -- both of which yield 10% per year. Stock G earns its 10% by price accumulation alone, and Stock D earns its 10% by paying a 10% cash dividend. You own 1 share of each, and they are both worth $100/share. At the start, therefore, both Stock G and Stock D are worth $100.

At the end of 1 year, Stock G is now worth $110 (10% growth), and Stock D is still worth $100 but has paid you a $10 dividend which you re-invest. Your return on both stocks is the same -- before taxes. After taxes, however, Stock G is still worth $110 (no tax consequences) but Stock D has only returned you $108 because you paid 20% in capital gains taxes on the dividends. (I'm using 20% to keep the math simple in this example, but the principle is the same for any tax rate.) So after one year, Stock G is ahead by $2.

After year two, Stock G is now worth $121 ($110 x 10%), and stock D is worth $108 ($100 original + $8 reinvested) but has paid you a $10.80 dividend, reduced by taxes to $8.64, for a total gain of $116.64. Stock G is now ahead by $4.36

Hopefully you can now see where this is going. Every year the spread between Stock G and Stock D is going to get wider and wider because taxes aren't depleting any of your Stock G capital.

(cont.)

>>854742
>You are basically saying that don't understand what compounding is.
I think you're the one who is quite confused here, sport. You do realize that both price gains and distributions compound equally in a tax-advantaged account, right? Please tell me your not so stupid as the managed your own seven-figure portfolio and not grasp the basics of investment strategy. This is honestly a bit sad.

Look, you can be edgy and and insult me all you want (yay 4chan) but the fact remains that you haven't responded to my legitimate criticisms of your investing strategy. To reiterate, you're accepting lower performance on your portfolio due to sub-optimal asset allocation, which impairs your compounding, and receiving no benefit from doing so. Its just stupid and I can't think of a single justification for doing so.
>you see yourself as the kind of sharp wheeler-dealer, wolf of Wall Street, lunch is for wimps, Patrick Bateman type
Actually I'm a conservative investor who puts most of his money into index funds.
>whereas in reality you're probably very young, live with your parents, and have probably never left your home county
Yeah, another big mistake, junior. I'm older than you, smarter than you, and far wealthier than you.

But as fun as it is to make you look foolish, let's not make this about our net worth. My observations are true regardless of how much money I have (which happens to be about 10x what you have, for the record).

>Incidentally I think you should also look up what "versant" actually means
"Versant" means "conversant," as in sufficiently knowledgeable about a topic to discuss it with authority. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/versant

>>854742
>You are basically saying that don't understand what compounding is.
I think you're the one who is quite confused here, sport. You do realize that both price gains and distributions compound equally in a tax-advantaged account, right? Please tell me you're not so stupid as to manage your own seven-figure portfolio and not grasp the basics of investment strategy. This is honestly a bit sad.

Look, you can be edgy and and insult me all you won't (yay 4chan) but the fact remains that you haven't responded at all to my legitimate criticisms of your investing strategy. To reiterate, you're accepting lower performance on your portfolio due to sub-optimal asset allocation, which impairs your compounding, and receiving no benefit from doing so. Its just stupid and I can't think of a single justification for your approach.

>you see yourself as the kind of sharp wheeler-dealer, wolf of Wall Street, lunch is for wimps, Patrick Bateman type
Actually I'm a conservative investor who puts most of his money into index funds.
>whereas in reality you're probably very young, live with your parents, and have probably never left your home county
Yeah, another big mistake, junior. I'm older than you, smarter than you, and far wealthier than you.

But as fun as it is to make you look foolish, let's not make this about our net worth. My observations are true regardless of how much money I have (which happens to be about 10x what you have, for the record).

>Incidentally I think you should also look up what "versant" actually means
"Versant" means "conversant," as in sufficiently knowledgeable about a topic to discuss it with authority. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/versant

>>854742
>You are basically saying that don't understand what compounding is.
I think you're the one who is quite confused here, sport. You do realize that both price gains and distributions compound equally in a tax-advantaged account, right? Please tell me your not so stupid as the managed your own seven-figure portfolio and not grasp the basics of investment strategy. This is honestly a bit sad.

Look, you can be edgy and and insult me all you won't (yay 4chan) but the fact remains that you haven't responded at all to my legitimate criticisms of your investing strategy. To reiterate, you're accepting lower performance on your portfolio due to sub-optimal asset allocation, which impairs your compounding, and receiving no benefit from doing so. Its just stupid and I can't think of a single justification for doing so.
>you see yourself as the kind of sharp wheeler-dealer, wolf of Wall Street, lunch is for wimps, Patrick Bateman type
Actually I'm a conservative investor who puts most of his money into index funds.
>whereas in reality you're probably very young, live with your parents, and have probably never left your home county
Yeah, another big mistake, junior. I'm older than you, smarter than you, and far wealthier than you.

But as fun as it is to make you look foolish, let's not make this about our net worth. My observations are true regardless of how much money I have (which happens to be about 10x what you have, for the record).

>Incidentally I think you should also look up what "versant" actually means
"Versant" means "conversant," as in sufficiently knowledgeable about a topic to discuss it with authority. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/versant

>>851872
>How much is your house worth? You're worth like 12 million dollars excluding your house, right?
Closer to 13 now, excluding the house, which is probably another million.
>Are you going to buy a vacation home?
Thinking about it now that I have the time to travel, Can't decide between Wisconsin or Michigan Shore.

>>851927
>Tell us how your mommy paid your university and land you a job with her money
My parents did pay for my education, for which I am eternally grateful. We were a solidly middle-class family growing up, tending towards upper middle-class. I never claimed to be a rags-to-riches story.

If that somehow diminishes my career and investing accomplishments in your eyes, you're welcome to your opinion.

>>851796
>What was the best joke you ever heard from a partner?
Not a joke, but a true story:

In my second year of practice, I was chatting in the elevator with a partner that I had worked with a few months prior. He asked me about my weekend, and I told him that I would be moving boxes since I had just bought my first house.

He got this big grin on his face, which I thought was really nice since he seemed genuinely happy for me.

Then he says, "We love it when you associates buy houses. It tends to make you work harder and stick around longer."

That's when I first realized that associates are viewed as nothing more than billable hours machines.

>>851678
>were you working IB hours?
Yes, I was generally working 80-100 hour weeks, and billing between 60-80 hours/week. Sometime less, and sometimes more (e.g., during trials).

>Can you elaborate a bit on the equity structures?
There is no standard equity structure among US law firms, and every firm does partnership, equity buy-ins, and profit sharing very differently. I can't really comment on the economics of small firm practice, but in BigLaw the buy-in is pretty small compared to your compensation such that I never gave it much thought as an "investment" per se. Our partnership agreement really didn't give partners an ownership stake in the the traditional sense, but rather an entitlement to share in excess profits. What mattered to us was the annual revenue, not the value of the firm itself.

>>851113
>You must have landed a job with a very high salary and made wise investments then. Correct?
Correct. Though I made some stupid investments when I younger, and wised up as I got older.

>>851155
>at one point in your life, you were making less than $100k a year and working full time or close to it, correct?
Correct, my starting salary was $70K and I certainly worked like a dog for many years. After 11 years in BigLaw, I decided I had enough money (and hated my current job) and so I started working for myself and dropped my hours by 50%. I did that for another 6-7 years, and basically retired last year.

>What happened to you or what did you do to make the jump to one percenter?
My job is very lucrative, and my salary and bonus escalated rapidly. My salary + bonus history:

75,000
84,000
101,200
113,900
144,600
201,200
270,500
346,500
330,000
451,900

Then I made partner, and for a couple years was actually making over $1MM/year. After that, I started working for myself.

>>851124
>One story is you're a god, another is you're a fraud.
Well, neither is true. I've done some good things with my job and my investments, and it's made me financially independent and secure with a very comfortable lifestyle. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>851537
>what's the deal with becoming a partner in a law firm? How is the equity stake valued?
In a small firm where partnership means an actual ownership interest, the equity stake would be calculated using tradition valuation methods (e.g., multiple of future projected cash flows).

Large law firms, like the one I worked for, aren't actually partnerships anymore -- they're mostly LLPs or LLCs. The equity buy-in is usually at a formula established by the management committee that bears only passing relation to the actual value of the firm. Its more like a token buy-in than a purchase of an actual equity stake.

>>850627
Law. You can read my AMA from last year if you're curious about further background details.

https://archive.moe/biz/thread/301031

>>850571
You're asking the wrong website if you expect a lot of responses, but yes, I meet your criteria. I make between $400-$500K/annually in passive income off my investments (I think that qualifies as upper-middle class) and I no longer need a job.

Did you have some questions, or are you just looking for potential robbery targets?

>>849996
>go for growth stocks that get taxed at a higher rate
Jesus, you're a train wreck. Long-term capital gains get taxed at the same rate as qualified dividends. The difference being, those taxes aren't assessed until you sell, meaning your investment capital isn't eroded during your accumulation period.

>>849999
>calling bullshit!
Call whatever you want. Quads or no quads, you're still a moron.

>>834512
>how do I get into distressed company world?
Well, the holy trinity for distressed and bankrupt company representations is:

* lawyer
* consultant
* investment banker

Any big company is going to have all three. A mid-sized case may omit the ibanker. Rarely, in a small case it might be just the lawyer or just the consultant.

Consultancy is probably the easiest to break into because the barriers to entry are lowest and the range of services is the widest. The consultants might do anything from strategic counseling, interim management, optimization, forensic accounting, and downsizing & liquidations. Your big national players are the Alix Partners and Alvarez types. There are also plenty of smaller and regional shops that compete for mid-sized and smaller cases.

ibanking is pretty self-explanatory. They do everything from bridge financing, refis and resizes, DIP loans, and sales (both in and out of bankruptcy). The investment bankers I've dealt with have been pretty white shoe (think Blackstone) but there are smaller shops too.

Not sure how easy it is to break into debt trading. If you mean bank/bond debt, you're going to be competing against some big players with efficient trading desks. If you're talking about buying discounted trade debt, its a pretty saturated field.

I don't know what kind of degree or experience is needed to break into the field. There's such a large cross-section of firms doing this stuff that I'm sure the answer depends on where you're looking. As you would expect, the big NY firms hire a lot of Ivy League, MBA, top-of-class types ... similar to a large law firm. But obviously the standards are a bit more lax as you start looking at the smaller, regional shops.

Hope that was helpful.

>>831906
That was very helpful. Thank you for taking the time to provide some additional detail.

Since there is a possibility that you might need the funds in the short-term (to pay for your masters), my recommendation would be to choose a safer allocation now. I would consider either the "Cautious" or the "Balanced" models.

If it becomes clear that you're not going to need the funds to pay for the degree (as you expect) or for any other short-term need, then you can shift into something more appropriate for the long haul. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the "Aggressive" model for someone with a good 25-30 year investing horizon. A 90/10 portfolio is perfectly appropriate for someone in their 20's to early 30's (and possibly even after).

Lastly, don't forget to establish your emergency fund and update it as your life changes. A 3-12 month emergency fund will take away a lot of financial worries, and help ensure that your stay on track with your long-term savings goals even when you encounter bumps along the road.

>>831194
40% into bonds is a pretty conservative allocation for a long-term investment. But since you don't state your age, goals, or investment horizon its impossible to actually give any useful advice.

Investing is not "one size fits all." You need to tailor your portfolio to your particular circumstances. If you provide some additional information, folks will be able to give more informed feedback.

>>830789
>When did you start and with how much?
For my retirement accounts, I started when I started working, like most people. So 24 in my case.

Not sure what you mean by how much did I start with. I started with zero in my retirement accounts, like everyone else.

>What %is employer matched?
None.

>I was under the impression 401k was capped at 18000.
Your maximum annual tax deferment is actually much higher. For example, the maximum in 2014 was $52,000. You just need to be creative -- and have a high enough income -- to take advantage of the higher limits.

In my case, I used my employer's deferred comp plan initially, and then later a SEP-IRA, to defer the max every year.

>>830695
I guess there's just been fewer threads worth jumping into. Maybe its the summer effect.