Should I take it?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
My wife doesn't make much. She is a patients accounts rep for HOAG hospital and works so she doesn't get bored and for the principal of it. She is going into early retirement when the baby arrives ;) So zero.
 
Well I thank all of you for the inputs. Some have brought up points that I wouldn't have thought of and that is why I posted. Great feedback.



I think I will take the job, however I'll re-evaluate 90 days into it. Perhaps after New Years. I'm not signing a contract so I can always just say "thanks, but no thanks" haha get it...nevermind...
 
[quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1227083532][quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1227082597][quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1227077513][quote author="Shooby" date=1227076773]Employer based health insurance is Guaranteed Issue, so they would have to accept him for coverage regardless.



Unless of course, there is a benefits waiting period of say, 6 months, and she's 5 months pregnant...</blockquote>


I know from past experience that a pregnancy was considered pre-existing condition for one parent's insurance but it was covered under another parent's insurance. However, it depends on what doctor is picked in the emergency room, even with health insurance you could go broke paying for the non-deductible.</blockquote>


Well I do have health-insurance, its just that I pay for it and its expensive. So pre-condition or not, I should be able to get it through whoever if you can prove you had prior insurance. I believe pre-existing conditions only apply if you didn't have insurance at all. But I'll double check. Thanks.</blockquote>
I meant the new insurance won't take it, it has to go on the old insurance. Some do and some don't. Please check.</blockquote>


I think Blackvault's right, as long as you can show that there isn't a gap in your insurance coverage, the new insurance has to cover it. Where it gets tricky is if you go a few months without insurance, then you sign up and have a claim, the insurance company will question the pre-existing condition unless you can prove you have had insurance with no loss in coverage. They just request a termination letter with the effective date of termination from your previous health insurance coverage, and then they will pay it out because they have to.
 
[quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1227083661]Well I thank all of you for the inputs. Some have brought up points that I wouldn't have thought of and that is why I posted. Great feedback.



I think I will take the job, however I'll re-evaluate 90 days into it. Perhaps after New Years. I'm not signing a contract so I can always just say "thanks, but no thanks" haha get it...nevermind...</blockquote>


Keep in mind if you dont like after 90 days you will be making your buddy who hired you look bad - so tell him upfront that this may or may not work out and if he still hires you then you are good. Or maybe he wont care.
 
[quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1227082597][quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1227077513][quote author="Shooby" date=1227076773]Employer based health insurance is Guaranteed Issue, so they would have to accept him for coverage regardless.



Unless of course, there is a benefits waiting period of say, 6 months, and she's 5 months pregnant...</blockquote>


I know from past experience that a pregnancy was considered pre-existing condition for one parent's insurance but it was covered under another parent's insurance. However, it depends on what doctor is picked in the emergency room, even with health insurance you could go broke paying for the non-deductible.</blockquote>


Well I do have health-insurance, its just that I pay for it and its expensive. So pre-condition or not, I should be able to get it through whoever if you can prove you had prior insurance. I believe pre-existing conditions only apply if you didn't have insurance at all. But I'll double check. Thanks.</blockquote>


As long as you don't have a gap in coverage, you will have no worries... As king of HR for a company, I can tell you that we have never had a carrier try to deny a maternity claim in such an instance. Carriers don't usually screw around with maternity claims. It's bad PR.



Take the job. Commuting to LA on the train sucks. I did it from Anaheim to downtown for a year... Learn to sleep on the train. Little less sleep at night and napping on the Metrolink. That's how the pros do it.



And no, low 90's is not a low salary for an FA. A senior FA in most common terms is 5+ years experience and will typically command a salary of $70-95K depending on company size. You aren't often going to find them making over $100K...
 
[quote author="Shooby" date=1227084482][quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1227083532][quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1227082597][quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1227077513][quote author="Shooby" date=1227076773]Employer based health insurance is Guaranteed Issue, so they would have to accept him for coverage regardless.



Unless of course, there is a benefits waiting period of say, 6 months, and she's 5 months pregnant...</blockquote>


I know from past experience that a pregnancy was considered pre-existing condition for one parent's insurance but it was covered under another parent's insurance. However, it depends on what doctor is picked in the emergency room, even with health insurance you could go broke paying for the non-deductible.</blockquote>


Well I do have health-insurance, its just that I pay for it and its expensive. So pre-condition or not, I should be able to get it through whoever if you can prove you had prior insurance. I believe pre-existing conditions only apply if you didn't have insurance at all. But I'll double check. Thanks.</blockquote>
I meant the new insurance won't take it, it has to go on the old insurance. Some do and some don't. Please check.</blockquote>


I think Blackvault's right, as long as you can show that there isn't a gap in your insurance coverage, the new insurance has to cover it. Where it gets tricky is if you go a few months without insurance, then you sign up and have a claim, the insurance company will question the pre-existing condition unless you can prove you have had insurance with no loss in coverage. They just request a termination letter with the effective date of termination from your previous health insurance coverage, and then they will pay it out because they have to.</blockquote>


This happened to me in the 90s, sorry I had to be specific now. My spouse and I both had insurance separately but the pregrancy was not insured on one plan because of existing conditions. So it depends on the plan.
 
[quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1227086718]



This happened to me in the 90s, sorry I had to be specific now. My spouse and I both had insurance separately but the pregrancy was not insured on one plan because of existing conditions. So it depends on the plan.</blockquote>


Not sure when in the 90s this occurred WPR, but under HIPAA, which was enacted in 1996, health plans are prohibited from imposing pre-existing condition exclusions on pregnancy. Dats da fact Jack, <a href="http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html">the DOL says so</a>...
 
Thanks for confirming ipoplaya and thanks for the sleeping tips as i'm afraid I'll need em. However, not sure if I'll be able to sleep with the stock-market open. I barely even eat during that time then pigout when bell-closes.
 
I am surprised to learn that you make over $100k day-trading. I guess you would need a good $500k otherwise you are gambling and could lose big quickly...



$91k + Benefits (Health, 401(k), Disability, Life ins.) is a good steady income. Hope you like it as it might be a big adjustment in your lifestyle.



Good luck with this!
 
[quote author="Roo" date=1227108395]I am surprised to learn that you make over $100k day-trading. I guess you would need a good $500k otherwise you are gambling and could lose big quickly...



$91k + Benefits (Health, 401(k), Disability, Life ins.) is a good steady income. Hope you like it as it might be a big adjustment in your lifestyle.



Good luck with this!</blockquote>


I've been day-trading for 10 years. I won't say how much capital I have, but I don't have to take gambling type of risks to make money. If that was the case, I wouldn't be day trading and would be bust by now.

Only reason I'm considering this job is I figure I can still make close to what I make day-trading, then this 91K + benefits is like extra cash on top of it all. If it was a choice between the job and day-trading, one or the other, the 91K job wouldn't even be considered.
 
[quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1227075589]So I was talking to a buddy of mine who needs a sr finance analyst position filled. He asked me to take it.



The job is pretty simple...cash flow analysis, data mining, reporting, presentations bla bla...



The pros: 91K/yr and the big one is health insurance (since currently I pay for my own health-insurance and I have a baby coming)



The cons: I can't day trade as actively as I would like and the job is in LA. (1hr train ride). Oh and I also can't work naked...



Now, if I didn't have access to a computer/bberry I wouldn't even think about it. But the fact is he says I'll have a computer, a laptop and a bberry. So making a couple of trades during the day won't be an issue unless I'm in middle of a presentation.



I'm just trying to weigh the cost of not being "engaged" in the market 100% of the time and not being able to literally stare at the screen vs. the benefits of a steady income + insurance and still being able to trade. I mean who knows, maybe I can capture the same gains making less frequent trades vs. current...I just don't know how to calculate the benefit vs. cost properly...



I'm leaning towards taking it I guess. If it doesn't work I can always drop it eh?</blockquote>
BV, I haven't read all the responses to your post, so this may already have been discussed.

If you take this job, you may have to disclose your trades with your company.

My husband and his brother are in the financial industry. They both have to get every trade approved by their company. And both companies get all duplicate statements sent to them.



Also, my husband fired someone when he found out they were day trading on the job - so be careful if you do this.



Just another thing for you to consider.



Good luck with your decision.
 
[quote author="ipoplaya" date=1227088138][quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1227086718]



This happened to me in the 90s, sorry I had to be specific now. My spouse and I both had insurance separately but the pregrancy was not insured on one plan because of existing conditions. So it depends on the plan.</blockquote>


Not sure when in the 90s this occurred WPR, but under HIPAA, which was enacted in 1996, health plans are prohibited from imposing pre-existing condition exclusions on pregnancy. Dats da fact Jack, <a href="http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html">the DOL says so</a>...</blockquote>
Ok it was early 90, thanks for clarifying.
 
[quote author="CalGal" date=1227134099][quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1227075589]So I was talking to a buddy of mine who needs a sr finance analyst position filled. He asked me to take it.



The job is pretty simple...cash flow analysis, data mining, reporting, presentations bla bla...



The pros: 91K/yr and the big one is health insurance (since currently I pay for my own health-insurance and I have a baby coming)



The cons: I can't day trade as actively as I would like and the job is in LA. (1hr train ride). Oh and I also can't work naked...



Now, if I didn't have access to a computer/bberry I wouldn't even think about it. But the fact is he says I'll have a computer, a laptop and a bberry. So making a couple of trades during the day won't be an issue unless I'm in middle of a presentation.



I'm just trying to weigh the cost of not being "engaged" in the market 100% of the time and not being able to literally stare at the screen vs. the benefits of a steady income + insurance and still being able to trade. I mean who knows, maybe I can capture the same gains making less frequent trades vs. current...I just don't know how to calculate the benefit vs. cost properly...



I'm leaning towards taking it I guess. If it doesn't work I can always drop it eh?</blockquote>
BV, I haven't read all the responses to your post, so this may already have been discussed.

If you take this job, you may have to disclose your trades with your company.

My husband and his brother are in the financial industry. They both have to get every trade approved by their company. And both companies get all duplicate statements sent to them.



Also, my husband fired someone when he found out they were day trading on the job - so be careful if you do this.



Just another thing for you to consider.



Good luck with your decision.</blockquote>


We have something in place to check web site visits by employees. If I found out one of my staff was trading regularly during the day, they'd be whacked immediately.



Fortunately for me, my machine's activitiy is not logged :)
 
Interesting topic. I'll add my 2 cents bc I've been doing what you might do for about 4 years now. I also work in finance.



I live in Irvine and commute to DT LA and have been trading actively. I average about 200 trades a quarter and have made way more than my salary the last 3 years. I often wonder if i'd be better off just quiting, but I really think having steady cash flow really helps with my trading. I know my next meal won't depend on my trades so I can approach them with less emotion. I tried the full time daytrading thing in 1999-2000 and failed miserably. Maybe that was just bad timing.



So another vote for take it. There is no need to do any sort of cost benefit analysis because past returns do not equal future returns when i comes to day trading. One bad streak can blow you out.



With this economy and the market going to hell and a baby coming, a steady job is probably going to be the most important thing to get you through the recession/depression in front of us.
 
[quote author="rtlguru" date=1227145917]Interesting topic. I'll add my 2 cents bc I've been doing what you might do for about 4 years now. I also work in finance.



I live in Irvine and commute to DT LA and have been trading actively. I average about 200 trades a quarter and have made way more than my salary the last 3 years. I often wonder if i'd be better off just quiting, but I really think having steady cash flow really helps with my trading. I know my next meal won't depend on my trades so I can approach them with less emotion. I tried the full time daytrading thing in 1999-2000 and failed miserably. Maybe that was just bad timing.



So another vote for take it. There is no need to do any sort of cost benefit analysis because past returns do not equal future returns when i comes to day trading. One bad streak can blow you out.



With this economy and the market going to hell and a baby coming, a steady job is probably going to be the most important thing to get you through the recession/depression in front of us.</blockquote>


You have a good point. I trade differently when I have a job then when I don't.
 
[quote author="ipoplaya" date=1227144715]



We have something in place to check web site visits by employees.



Fortunately for me, my machine's activitiy is not logged :)</blockquote>


Go figure!

Ipop never even wore a letterman?s jacket now he controls what someone can access.
 
<blockquote>We have something in place to check web site visits by employees. If I found out one of my staff was trading regularly during the day, they?d be whacked immediately.</blockquote>
And if you get fired in the financial industry, it gets listed on your license.

Any future employer will check your license before they hire you.

I think it's the NASD U-5 Form.
 
[quote author="CalGal" date=1227158332]<blockquote>We have something in place to check web site visits by employees. If I found out one of my staff was trading regularly during the day, they?d be whacked immediately.</blockquote>
And if you get fired in the financial industry, it gets listed on your license.

Any future employer will check your license before they hire you.

I think it's the NASD U-5 Form.</blockquote>
CalGal, that is too scary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top