Did this coupon
work for you?
work for you?
Sorry, this deal has expired.
Get notified of deals like this in the future.
Add Deal Alert for this Item
Frontpage
Advertiser Disclosure
Citi® Double Cash Card: Balance Transfers Expired
0% Intro APR
for 18 Months
Update: This credit card offer is available again.
Citi® is offering the Citi® Double Cash Card, which has an Intro APR Period of 18 months on Balance Transfers. Earn 2% cash back on purchases: 1% when you buy plus 1% as you pay. The annual fee is $0.
Thanks to Slickdeals Staff Member Jess96 for posting this deal.
Card Details:
Slickdeals may be compensated by Citi.
Citi® is offering the Citi® Double Cash Card, which has an Intro APR Period of 18 months on Balance Transfers. Earn 2% cash back on purchases: 1% when you buy plus 1% as you pay. The annual fee is $0.
Thanks to Slickdeals Staff Member Jess96 for posting this deal.
Card Details:
Slickdeals may be compensated by Citi.
Original Post
Written by
Edited August 11, 2022
at 08:03 AM
Citi® is offering the Citi® Double Cash Card, which has an Intro APR Period of 18 months on Balance Transfers. Earn 2% cash back on purchases: 1% when you buy plus 1% as you pay.
Card Features:
Slickdeals may be compensated by Citi.
Card Features:
Slickdeals may be compensated by Citi.
Created 11-05-2019
at 11:31 AM
by Jess96
in
Credit Cards
(2)
See More Citi Offers
If you take advantage of an offer on our site, Slickdeals may receive a commission.
Check Out Similar Credit Cards Deals
View AllPopular
Frontpage
Frontpage
These responses are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser.
Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser.
It is not the bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.
Opinions expressed here are the author's alone, not those of any bank, credit card issuer, airline or hotel chain, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any of these entities.
720 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
"There is a balance transfer fee of either $5 or 3% of the amount of each transfer, whichever is greater."
PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO A TWO YEAR OLD POST WONDERING WHY YOU CAN NOT FIND THIS SPECIFIC CARD/DEAL ANYMORE.
(above added after like the 6th person in a year necroed this discussion to reply to this post- original post from 2019 below)
Chase Slate is only 15 months but 0% balance transfer fee.
The slate itself sucks as a card to actually use for anything other than the BT, but if you're mainly concerned about the BT, and the 3 extra months won't kill you, it saves you 3% of however much you're transferring over this... plus once you're done with the BT you can product change it into a genuinely useful card like a Freedom or something.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
The discussion was literrally about parking your money in a SAVINGS ACCOUNT to get a 2% RETURN on it.... or putting it in BoA somewhere. Long term. (because you need to LEAVE IT there LONG TERM to maintain your status)
I'm not sure what discussion you imagine was happening, but it's not the one that actually was happening.
Over the long term it absolutely does.
https://www.slickcharts
That's S&P returns every year back to 1926.
Up years VASTLY outnumber down ones.
The longest it's EVER gone losing money is 4 years in a row.
And that was 1929- the great depression.
Apart from that it's lost money three years in a row twice (WW2, and the dot com burst).
And the losses are usually regained (and then some) within a couple of years of those periods ending.
The President isn't sitting on an economy that is firing on all cylinders to justify the market being at an all time high with valuations (P/E ratio) as lofty as the President's ego.
You're making up your own different question nobody else asked and isn't related to the thread.
. As you may note, the S&P lost close to 40% in one year (2008). What's to say we aren't sitting on a bubble like we were when the S&P lost 40% in 2008 alone?
Further- while it lost 37% (not 40) in 2008- it then GAINED 26.46% in 2009 and 15.06% in 2011....(and continued gaining for year after).... Not to mention it had made gains (double digit ones more often than not) for the 5 years PRIOR to 2008.
So unless you pulled all your cash out EXACTLY at the bottom of the market, you MADE MONEY having it in an S&P500 fund over the longer period.
Just as you do over ANY longer period in the entire history of the market.
But by all means if you think just hiding it in a 2% savings account (the ACTUAL suggestion made) makes sense long term- you're welcome to do it.
It's pretty damn far from a slick deal though.
You're making up your own different question nobody else asked and isn't related to the thread.
That has literally nothing to do with anything in this discussion though.
Further- while it lost 37% (not 40) in 2008- it then GAINED 26.46% in 2009 and 15.06% in 2011....(and continued gaining for year after).... Not to mention it had made gains (double digit ones more often than not) for the 5 years PRIOR to 2008.
So unless you pulled all your cash out EXACTLY at the bottom of the market, you MADE MONEY having it in an S&P500 fund over the longer period.
Just as you do over ANY longer period in the entire history of the market.
But by all means if you think just hiding it in a 2% savings account (the ACTUAL suggestion made) makes sense long term- you're welcome to do it.
It's pretty damn far from a slick deal though.
My point if rather than losing 37% or 40% or whatever large %, and then gaining 15% in the subsequent year, you could have it right now at 2% in savings while there are storm clouds, and then get the 15%. That way you are up 2% and the 15%, rather than down 40% and then a gain of 15%.
Which bring me back to my original question which you have so skillfully avoided (heck, this is not a Presidential or Vice Presidential debate). Sure, I made the question up and it was not a part of someone else's question.....it is a question regardless, namely:
The question is whether at this moment in time you should sell stocks , buy stocks or have your money in safe investments until the smoke clears. As you may note, the S&P lost 38% in one year (2008). What's to say we aren't sitting on a bubble like we were when the S&P lost 38% in 2008 alone?
YOU didn't say that. And NOBODY CLAIMED YOU SAID THAT.
The actual person I was replying to originally DID say that though.
YOU then jumped into a discussion that you weren't even involved in, and made up things it wasn't about.
Here's the ACTUAL post where someone suggested the savings account- the one I replied to:
I use my BoA CashBack card for 3% online purchases, & 2% wholesale clubs; Plus double dip with Cashback sites.
I then pointed out that's a terrible use of $100,000.
(the amount you need for BoA status).
You then made up some kind of argument nobody was having about short term stock market returns.
Which if you did, you could still make way more than 2% in the market
Since you're apparently unaware- you can make lots of money when the market goes DOWN too if you know when it's going to.
Most people suck at this though- so the smart thing is just keep putting $ in and LEAVE IT THERE long term.
Because long term the returns beat the hell out of 2% in a savings account.
As the actual S&P 500 returns I showed you going back generations prove.
It is A question.
Glad you realize it wasn't really a relevant one to what was actually the topic at least
That sounds like you're looking for general investment advice- which really doesn't belong in this thread (or even this forum really)
It lost 37% in 1 year (2008).
Then it gained MORE THAN THAT the next 2. It had also gained MORE THAN THAT the previous 5 years.
Unless you're going to IMMEDIATELY NEED THE MONEY IN CASH in the short term, the market consistently beats crap like savings accounts for where to keep your money long term.
A savings account might make sense for "We keep $5000 here for emergencies" or something.
It's crazy to stash 6-figures long term savings in there versus something with consistently much better returns long term.
If you don't want to put any effort into learning anything, just put it in an S&P500 index. That's warren buffetts advice. You'll average 10% or so returns annually over any decently long period of time.
If you DO want to put effort into it you can do even better of course, but requires some work.
And, of course, all of the above CONTINUES TO IGNORE the fact that most folks get their 100k into BoA via moving IRA money into Merrill.
You don't need to own stock at all if you do that.
(you should...but you don't have to- you can just leave it sitting there as cash getting a crap return if you prefer)
1. you can make lots of money when the market goes DOWN too if you know when it's going to.
2. Who cares? It lost 37% in 1 year (2008). Then it gained MORE THAN THAT the next 2. It had also gained MORE THAN THAT the previous 5 years.
3. You'll average 10% or so returns annually over any decently long period of time.
2. Because you are better off going from 2% to then gaining for 2+ years rather than going from for example -37% and then gaining the same for 2+ years.
3. Agree. No one has disputed the fact that over the long term you are better off in stocks so I don't know why you keep repeating it over and over.
Again, the issue is what you should do short term (i.e., 1 year). Are you better off holding this at 2% and waiting for a year until the smoke clears, or are you better off in the market for 1 year when you could potentially lose for example 37%. So, the immediate 1 year is the timeframe here (I specified this parameter so one doesn't have to hear you make the case yet again of returns over the long term, which no one has disputed and is besides the point)
The issue was if it's worth putting 100k into BoA to get platinum honors status.
The other guy claimed it wasn't because a BoA savings account gives you 2% less interest.
Which is a nonsensical objection because putting 100k into a SAVINGS ACCOUNT is nuts.
Plus- most folks get the status by rolling 100k of an IRA over- which can't go into a savings account even if it made any sense to do so.
You seem to want to start a different discussion about what to do investment-wise short term- which again nobody was talking about in the thread and isn't really a "deal" or relevant to this topic.
Though again as a general rule- people are terrible about timing WHEN to move money or out of markets- so the best strategy for most folks is just LEAVE it there unless it's $ you expect to need to spend in the very near future.
the issue is what you should do short term (i.e., 1 year). Are you better off holding this at 2% and waiting for a year until the smoke clears, or are you better off in the market for 1 year when you could potentially lose for example 37%. So, the immediate 1 year is the timeframe here (I specified this parameter so one doesn't have to hear you make the case yet again of returns over the long term, which no one has disputed and is besides the point)
Though again as a general rule- people are terrible about timing WHEN to move money or out of markets- so the best strategy for most folks is just LEAVE it there unless it's $ you expect to need to spend in the very near future.
Your Cash Earns Zip, Zilch, Nada. Don't Make It Worse.
It's never been more tempting to take extra risk with the money you want to keep ultrasafe. But knowing what not to do is vital.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/your...60225606
=========================
Also, don't forget the maxim of buy low and sell high. Right now, the S&P is close to an all time high which means it is a great time to sell before the rug is pulled from under your feet.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Because far as I can tell you're the only one trying to have a short-term investment discussion in a credit card deal thread.
Your link also suggests you either ignored, or didn't understand, 99% of the content of my previous replies.
Even worse- it's behind a pay wall.
Anyway- you go ahead and stuff your cash in your mattress where it becomes worth less daily- I'll keep mind in the markets where I can consistently make a profitable return (much moreso than in a savings account) regardless of what direction stocks move short term.
Anyway- you go ahead and stuff your cash in your mattress where it becomes worth less daily- I'll keep mind in the markets where I can consistently make a profitable return (much moreso than in a savings account) regardless of what direction stocks move short term.
You are free to disagree with the experts of the Wall Street Journal and continue to buy stocks at prices which are an all time high. Perhaps you are the contrarian that goes by buy when high and sell when low.
You are free to disagree with the experts of the Wall Street Journal and continue to buy stocks at prices which are an all time high. Perhaps you are the contrarian that goes by buy when high and sell when low.
You misunderstood the discussion you jumped into (which had literally nothing to do with short term investing)
Then got mad when nobody else was having the discussion you imagined was happening so just kept repeating your irrelevant question nobody was discussing.
Then misunderstood the replies you DID get about investment and the market.
Then posted a link (behind a paywall no less) that SHOWS you didn't understand the replies.
Again there's ways to make $ on the market regardless of the direction it's moving. Even the most conservative strategies for making options premium money for example beat the hell out of a 2% savings accounts and continue doing so regardless of any short term drops in the market.
Anyway have fun with your mattress stuffing
Anyway have fun with your mattress stuffing
You are free to disagree with the experts of the Wall Street Journal and continue to buy stocks at prices which are an all time high. Perhaps you are the contrarian that goes by buy when high and sell when low.
Anyway, have fun having the rug pulled under your feet when prices are at an all time high without the fundamentals to back it.
(and again dude- if you actually understood what you were being told you'd understand I don't care if the prices are high or low. I'm making regular income on option premiums not changes in stock price)
So yes it makes perfect sense.
"Apple's stock has jumped 59% so far this year. At more than 31 times forward earnings, the stock remains in its most expensive valuation range in more than a decade. Apple still has a strong base of fans willing to line up for whatever the company comes up with each year. Getting enough of them to justify a market value of $2 trillion will be a tall order."
"Apple's stock has jumped 59% so far this year. At more than 31 times forward earnings, the stock remains in its most expensive valuation range in more than a decade. Apple still has a strong base of fans willing to line up for whatever the company comes up with each year. Getting enough of them to justify a market value of $2 trillion will be a tall order."
So first let's prove you're clueless with actual math from your actual stock example.
Let's say you had 100 shares of APPL as the last recession approached.- if you'd magically known about the Dec 2007 recession and sold your stock you'd have about $700. So let's say you slap it into a savings account Jan 2008 and wait 2 years.
(and you'd also owe cap gains taxes on the stock sale.... but since you don't understand the very basics that's gonna be way over your head so we'll ignore it)
$700 at 2% annual interest in a savings account for 2 years and Jan 2010 you'd now have....$728.28 (mins those taxes you we are ignoring on the stock sale).
If you'd instead just LEFT IT IN THE STOCK, the stock would now be worth $757.
Huh.
Your stupid savings account idea lost you money compared to 2 years in the market RIGHT THROUGH A RECESSION.
HOW SHOCKING.
Still though-If you're confident Apple stock is about to plummet rather than continue going up by a greater amount than the 2% you get in a savings account there'd be a ton of money to be made shorting the stock.
Or by selling long term out of the money calls.
Or by buying long term out of the money puts.
Your inability to understand one can make money in the market regardless of which direction it goes notwithstanding.
(and your inability to understand how wildly off-topic your lack of understanding of the market is for this thread notwithstanding- but by all means keep embarrassing yourself and digging a deeper hole- it's kind of hilarious)
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
"Apple's stock has jumped 59% so far this year. At more than 31 times forward earnings, the stock remains in its most expensive valuation range in more than a decade. Apple still has a strong base of fans willing to line up for whatever the company comes up with each year. Getting enough of them to justify a market value of $2 trillion will be a tall order."
With BOA relationships the fees should be low or negligible though honestly I'd say DIY. You can invest in companies you care about.
But it's a little crazy for anyone to think having your money sitting in a less than 1% interest savings account is worth it. Where to recoup losses from inflation you have to spend more money and have your savings locked in and wasting away.
(Especially in this environment, where doubling your investments year over year was possible if you knew what you were doing, and at least 10-20% gains easily even if you didn't. Almost all of the stocks you could do this on were not risky to bet on.)
Or by buying long term out of the money puts.