Datasets:

jasper-xian

/

tevatron_fiqa_qrels

like 0

[ { "docid": "552707", "title": "", "text": "\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "451737", "title": "", "text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"" }, { "docid": "528518", "title": "", "text": "Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know. In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%. For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40. Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense. For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve. Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied." }, { "docid": "273761", "title": "", "text": "\"As you note, your question is inherently opinion-based. That said, if I were in your situation I would sell the stock all at once and buy whatever it is you want to buy (hopefully some index ETF or mutual fund). According to what I see, the current value of the HD stock is about $8500 and the JNJ stock is worth less than $500. With a total investment of less than $10,000, any gain you are likely to miss by liquidating now is not going to be huge in absolute terms. This is doubly true since you were given the stock, so you have no specific reason to believe it will do well at all. If you had picked it yourself based on careful analysis, it could be worth keeping if you \"\"believed in yourself\"\" (or even if you just wanted to test your acumen), but as it is the stock is essentially random. Even if you want to pursue an aggressive allocation, it doesn't make sense to allocate everything to one stock for no reason. If you were going to put everything in one stock, you'd want it to be a stock you had analyzed and picked. (I still think it would be a bad idea, but at least it would be a more defensible idea.) So I would say the risk of your lopsided allocation (just two companies, with more than 90% of the value in just one) outweighs any risk of missing out on a gain. If news breaks tomorrow that the CEO of Home Depot has been embezzling (or if Trump decides to go on the Twitter warpath for some reason), your investment could disappear. Another common way to think about it is: if you had $9000 today to buy stocks with, would you buy $8500 worth of HD and $500 worth of JNJ? If not, it probably doesn't make sense to hold them just because you happen to have them. The only potential exception to my advice above would be tax considerations. You didn't mention what your basis in the stock is. Looking at historical prices, it looks like if all the stock was 20 years old you'd have a gain of about $8000, and if all of it was 10 years old you'd have a gain of about $6000. If your tax situation is such that selling all the stock at once would push you into a higher tax bracket, it might make sense to sell only enough to fit into your current bracket, and sell the rest next year. However, I think this situation is unlikely because: A) since the stock has been held for a long time, most of the gains will be at the lower long-term rate; B) if you have solid income, you can probably afford the tax; and C) if you don't have solid income, your long-term capital gains rate will likely be zero.\"" }, { "docid": "528475", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"" }, { "docid": "408123", "title": "", "text": "\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "257921", "title": "", "text": "If you're worried about volatility, and you're in mostly long positions, you should be looking to diversify your portfolio (meaning, buying some stocks that will do better in a bear market) if it's not already diverse, but you shouldn't be looking to abandon your positions, unless you anticipate a short-term need for cash. Other than that, you may want to hold off on the short-term positions for a while if you're concerned about volatility, though many traders see volatility as a great time to make money (as there is more movement, there's more opportunity to make money from mispriced stocks in both directions). Unless you think the market will be permanently down due to these reasons, anyway, but I don't see any reason to believe that yet. Even World War Two wasn't enough to permanently hurt the market, after all! Remember that everyone in the market knows what you do. If there were a sure thing that the market was going to crash, it already would have. Conservative positions tend to involve holding onto a well diversified portfolio rather than simply holding onto cash, unless the investor is very conservative (in which case the portfolio should be cash anyway). The fact that you say this is your rainy day fund does make me a little curious, though; typically rainy day funds are better in cash (and not invested) since you might hit that rainy day and need cash quickly (in which case you could take significant losses if the time isn't right)." }, { "docid": "478600", "title": "", "text": "\"The tax comes when you close the position. If the option expires worthless it's as if you bought it back for $0. There's a short-term capital gain for the difference between your short-sale price and your buyback price on the option. I believe the capital gain is always short-term because short sales are treated as short-term even if you hold them open more than one year. If the option is exercised (calling away your stock) then you add the premium to your sale price on the stock and then compute the capital gain. So in this case you can end up treating the premium as a long-term capital gain. See IRS pub 550 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010619 Search for \"\"Writers of puts and calls\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "368348", "title": "", "text": "Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it." }, { "docid": "513281", "title": "", "text": "\"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"" }, { "docid": "474981", "title": "", "text": "\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"" }, { "docid": "594935", "title": "", "text": "\"From some of your previous questions it seems like you trade quite often, so I am assuming you are not a \"\"Buy and Hold\"\" person. If that is the case, then have you got a written Trading Plan? Considering you don't know what to do after a 40% drop, I assume the answer to this is that you don't have a Trading Plan. Before you enter any trade you should have your exit point for that trade pre-determined, and this should be included in your Trading Plan. You should also include how you pick the shares you buy, do you use fundamental analysis, technical analysis, a combination of the two, a dart board or some kind of advisory service? Then finally and most importantly you should have your position sizing and risk management incorporated into your Plan. If you are doing all this, and had automatic stop loss orders placed when you entered your buy orders, then you would have been out of the stock well before your loss got to 40%. If you are looking to hang on and hoping for the stock to recover, remember with a 40% drop, the stock will now need to rise by 67% just for you to break even on the trade. Even if the stock did recover, how long would it take? There is the potential for opportunity loss waiting for this stock to recover, and that might take years. If the stock has fallen by 40% in a short time it is most likely that it will continue to fall in the short term, and if it falls to 50%, then the recovery would need to be 100% just for you to break even. Leave your emotions out of your trading as much as possible, have a written Trading Plan which incorporates your risk management. A good book to read on the psychology of the markets, position sizing and risk management is \"\"Trade your way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp (I actually went to see him talk tonight in Sydney, all the way over from the USA).\"" }, { "docid": "16175", "title": "", "text": "\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \"\"sell high buy low\"\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\"" }, { "docid": "583378", "title": "", "text": "There's a lot of hype about HFT. It involves computers doing things that people don't really understand and making a bunch of rich guys a bunch of money, and there was a crisis and so we hate rich wall street guys this year, and so it's a hot-button issue. Meh. There's some reason for concern about the safety of the markets, but I think there's also a lot more of people trying to sell you a newspaper. Remember that while HFT may mean there are a lot of trades, the buying and the selling add up to the same thing. Meanwhile, people who buy stock to hold on to it for significant periods of time will still affect the quantity of stock out there on the market, applying pressure to the price, buying and selling at the prices that they think the security is worth. As a result, it's unlikely that high-frequency trading moves the stock price very far from the price that the rest of the market would determine for very long; if it did, the lower-frequency traders could take advantage of it, buying if it's too low and selling if it's too high. How long do you plan to hold a stock? If you're trying to do day-trading, you might have some trouble; these people are competing with you to do the same thing, and have significant resources at their disposal. If you're holding onto your stock for years on end (like you probably should be doing with most stock) then a trivial premium or discount on the price probably isn't going to be a big deal for you." }, { "docid": "115134", "title": "", "text": "How I understand it is: supply/demand affect price of stock negatively/positively, respectively. Correct. Volume is the amount of buying/selling activity in these stocks (more volume = more fluctuation, right?). Sort of. Higher volume means higher liquidity. That is, a stock that is traded more is easier to trade. It doesn't necessarily mean more fluctuation and in the real world, it often means that these are well-understood stocks with a high amount of analyst coverage. This tends towards these stocks not being as volatile as smaller stocks with less liquidity. Company revenue (and profit) will help an investor predict company growth. That is one factor in a stock price. There are certain stocks that you would buy without them making a profit because their future revenue looks potentially explosive. However, these stocks are very risky and are bubble-prone. If you're starting out in the share market, it's generally a good idea to invest in index funds (I am not a broker, my advice should not be taken as financial advice). These funds aggregate risk by holding a lot of different companies. Also, statistics have shown that over time, buying and holding index funds long term tends to dramatically outperform other investment strategies, particularly for people with low amounts of capital." }, { "docid": "261640", "title": "", "text": "\"The penny/pink sheet stocks you tend to see promoted are the ones a) with small public floats or, b) they are thinly traded. This means that any appreciable change in buy/sell volume will have an outsized effect on the stock's share price, even when the underlying fundamentals are not so great. Promoters are frequently paid based on how much they can move a stock's price, but such moves are not long-lasting. They peter out when the trading volumes return to more normal ranges for the stock because all of the hype has died out. There are some small-cap NASDAQ stocks which can be susceptible to promotion for the same reason -- they have small floats and/or are thinly traded. Once someone figures out the best targets, they'll accumulate a position and then start posting all kinds of \"\"news\"\" on the web in an effort to drum up interest so they can sell off their position into the buying that follows. The biggest problem with penny/pink sheet stocks is that they frequently fail to publish reliable financial statements, and their ownership is of a dubious nature. In the past, these types of stocks have been targeted by organized crime syndicates, which ran their own \"\"pump and dump\"\" operations as a way to make relatively easy money. This may still be true to some extent today. Be wary of investing in any publicly-traded firm that has to use promoters to drum up investor interest, because it can be a serious red flag. Even if it means missing out on a short-term opportunity, research the company before investing. Read its financials, understand how it has behaved through its trading history, learn about the products/services it is selling. Do your homework. Otherwise you are doing the investing equivalent of taking your money and lighting it on fire. Remember, there's a good reason these companies are trading as penny/pink sheet stocks, and it generally has nothing to do with the notion (the promoters will tell you) that somehow the \"\"market has missed out on this amazing opportunity.\"\" Pump and dump schemes, which lie at the heart of almost all stock promotion, rely on convincing you, the investor, that you're smart enough to see what others haven't. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "593644", "title": "", "text": "NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: you may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all." }, { "docid": "545267", "title": "", "text": "\"Very interesting question. While searching i also found that some precious metal ETFs (including IAU) gains are taxed at 28% because IRS considers it \"\"collectible\"\", rather than the usual long term 15% for stocks and stock holding ETFs. As for capital gain tax you have to pay now my guess it's because of the following statement in the IAU prospectus (page 34): When the trust sells gold, for example to pay expenses, a Shareholder will recognize gain or loss ....\"" }, { "docid": "257835", "title": "", "text": "The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold." }, { "docid": "121765", "title": "", "text": "The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation. Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on. Quite literally, any and all factors are fair game for a recommendation. So, the question isn't really what analysts do with financial data, it is what do analysts do with financial data that meets your investment needs? As an example, if you have two analysts, one who is focused on growth stocks, and one who is focused on dividend growth, they may have completely different views on a company. If both analysts were to analyze Apple (AAPL) 5 years ago, the dividend analyst would likely say SELL or at the most HOLD, because back then Apple did not have a dividend. However, an analyst focused on growth would likely have said BUY, because Apple appeared to be on a clear upward trend in terms of growth. Likewise, if you have analysts who are focused on shorting stocks, and ones who are focused on deep value investing, the sell analyst may be selling SELL because they are confident the stock will go down in price, so you can make money on the short position. Conversely, the deep value investor may be saying BUY, because they believe that based on the companies strong balance sheet, and recent shake-ups in management the stock will eventually turn around. Two completely different views for the same company: the analyst focused on shorting is looking to make money by capitalizing on falling share price, while the analyst focused on deep value is looking for unloved companies in a tailspin whom s/he believe will turn around, the thesis being that if you dollar-cost-average as the price drops, when it corrects, you'll reap the rewards. That all said, to answer the question about what analysts look for: So really, you should be looking for analysts who align with your investment style, and use those recommendations as a starting point for your own purchases. Personally, I am a dividend investor, so I have passed many BUY recommendations from analysts and my former broker because those were based on growth stories. That does not mean that the analysts, my former broker, or myself, are wrong. But we were all incorrect given the context of how I invest, and what they recommend." } ]

[ { "docid": "557877", "title": "", "text": "\"This answer relies on why you are holding shares of a company in the first place. So let's address that: So does this mean you would like to vote with your shares on the directions the company takes? If so, your reasons for selling would be different from the next speculator who only is interested in share price volatility. Regardless of your participation in potential voting rights associated with your share ownership, a different reason to sell is based on if your fundamental reasons for investing in the company have changed. Enhancements on this topic include: Trade management, how to deal with position sizes. Buying and selling partial positions based on price action while keeping a core long term position, but this is not something \"\"long term investors\"\" generally put too much effort in. Price targets, start your long term investment with a price target in mind, derived from a future market cap based on your initial fundamental analysis of the company's prospects. And finally, there are a lot of things you can do with a profitable investment in shares.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "344372", "title": "", "text": "I like C. Ross and MrChrister's advice to not be heavily weighted in one stock over the long run, especially the stock of your employer. I'll add this: One thing you really ought to find out – and this is where your tax advisor is likely able to help – is whether your company's stock options plan use qualified incentive stock options (ISO) or non-qualified stock options (NQO or NSO). See Wikipedia - Incentive stock option for details. From my understanding, only if your plan is a qualified (or statutory) ISO and you hold the shares for at least 1 year of the date of exercise and 2 years from the date of the option grant could your gain be considered a long-term capital gain. As opposed to: if your options are non-qualified, then your gain may be considered ordinary income no matter how long you wait – in which case there's no tax benefit to waiting to cash out. In terms of hedging the risk if you do choose to hold long, here are some ideas: Sell just enough stock at exercise (i.e. taking some tax hit up front) to at least recover your principal, so your original money is no longer at risk, or If your company has publicly listed options – which is unlikely, if they are very small – then you could purchase put options to insure against losses in your stock. Try a symbol lookup at the CBOE. Note: Hedging with put options is an advanced strategy and I suggest you learn more and seek advice from a pro if you want to consider this route. You'll also need to find out if there are restrictions on trading your employer's public stock or options – many companies have restrictions or black-out periods on employee trading, especially for people who have inside knowledge." }, { "docid": "507276", "title": "", "text": "\"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \"\"Income tax\"\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \"\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\"\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \"\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\"\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \"\"Dividend Distribution Tax\"\"? Paid by the company. What is \"\"Capital Gains\"\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\"" }, { "docid": "546932", "title": "", "text": "If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same. When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably. If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares. Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares." }, { "docid": "257274", "title": "", "text": "\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"" }, { "docid": "170247", "title": "", "text": "I can think of a few simple and quick techniques for timing the market over the long term, and they can be used individually or in combination with each other. There are also some additional techniques to give early warning of possible turns in the market. The first is using a Moving Average (MA) as an indication of when to sell. Simply if the price closes below the MA it is time to sell. Obviously if the period you are looking at is long term you would probably use a weekly or even monthly chart and use a relatively large period MA such as a 50 week or 100 week moving average. The longer the period the more the MA will lag behind the price but the less false signals and whipsawing there will be. As we are looking long term (5 years +) I would use a weekly chart with a 100 week Exponential MA. The second technique is using a Rate Of Change (ROC) Indicator, which is a momentum indicator. The idea for timing the markets in the long term is to buy when the indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when it crosses below the zero line. For long term investing I would use a 13 week EMA of the 52 week ROC (the EMA smooths out the ROC indicator to reduce the chance of false signals). The beauty of these two indicators is they can be used effectively together. Below are examples of using these two indicators in combination on the S&P500 and the Australian S&P ASX200 over the past 20 years. S&P500 1995 to 2015 ASX200 1995 to 2015 If I was investing in an ETF tracking one of these indexes I would use these two indicators together by using the MA as an early warning system and maybe tighten any stop losses I have so that if the market takes a sudden turn downward the majority of my profits would be protected. I would then use the ROC Indicator to sell out completely out of the ETF when it crosses below zero or to buy back in when the ROC moves back above zero. As you can see in both charts the two indicators would have kept you out of the market during the worst of the downfalls in 2000 and 2008 for the S&P500 and 2008 for the ASX200. If there is a false signal that gets you out of the market you can quite easily get back in if the indicator goes back above zero. Using these indicators you would have gotten into the market 3 times and out of it twice for the S&P500 over a 20 year period. For the ASX200 you would have gone in 6 times and out 5 times, also over a 20 year period. For individual shares I would use the ROC indicator over the main index the shares belong to, to give an indication of when to be buying individual stocks and when to tighten stop losses and stay on the sidelines. My philosophy is to buy rising stocks in a rising market and sell falling stocks in a falling market. So if the ROC indicator is above zero I would be looking to buy fundamentally healthy stocks that are up-trending and place a 20% trailing stop loss on them. If I get stopped out of one stock then I would look to replace it with another as long as the ROC is still above zero. If the ROC indicator crosses below zero I would tighten my trailing stop losses to 5% and not buy any new stocks once I get stopped out. Some additional indicators I would use for individual stock would be trend lines and using the MACD as a momentum indicator. These two indicators can give you further early warning that the stock may be about to reverse from its current trend, so you can tighten your stop loss even if the ROC is still above zero. Here is an example chart to explain: GEM.AX 3 Year Weekly Chart Basically if the price closes below the trend line it may be time to close out the position or at the very least tighten up your trailing stop loss to 5%. If the price breaks below an established uptrend line it may well be the end of the uptrend. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. As GEM has broken below the uptrend line and has maid a lower low, all that is needed to confirm the uptrend is over is a lower high. But months before the price broke below the uptrend line, the MACD momentum indicator was showing bearish divergence between it and the price. In early September 2014 the price made a higher high but the MACD made a lower high. This is called a bearish divergence and is an early warning signal that the momentum in the uptrend is weakening and the trend could be reversing soon. Notice I said could and not would. In this situation I would reduce my trailing stop to 10% and keep a watchful eye on this stock over the coming months. There are many other indicators that could be used as signals or as early warnings, but I thought I would talk about some of my favourites and ones I use on a daily and weekly basis. If you were to employ any of these techniques into your investing or trading it may take a little while to learn about them properly and to implement them into your trading plan, but once you have done that you would only need to spend 1 to 2 hours per week managing your portfolio if trading long-term or about 1 hour per nigh (after market close) if trading more medium term." }, { "docid": "528518", "title": "", "text": "Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know. In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%. For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40. Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense. For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve. Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied." }, { "docid": "579039", "title": "", "text": "A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks. That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters). Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight. A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it. Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own. These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types: event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015." }, { "docid": "561997", "title": "", "text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky." }, { "docid": "275943", "title": "", "text": "\"There are some useful answers here, but I don't think any of them are quite sufficient. Yes, there are some risks involved in CFD trading, but I will try and give you information so you can make your own decision. Firstly, Cyprus is part of the EU, which gives it a level of credibility. I'm not saying it's the safest or most well regulated market in the world, but that in itself would not particularly scare me away. The far more important issue here is the risk of using CFDs and of eToro themselves. A Contract for Difference is really just a specialization of an Equity Swap. It is in no way like owning a real stock. When you purchase shares of a company you own a real Asset and are usually entitled to dividends and voting rights. With a CFD, what you own is one side of a Swap contract. You have a legal agreement between yourself and eToro to \"\"swap\"\" the return earned on the underlying stock for whatever fees eToro decide to charge. As already mentioned, CFDs are not available to US citizens. Equity swaps have many benefits in financial markets. They can allow access to restricted markets by entering into swaps with banks that have the necessary licenses to trade in places like China. Many \"\"synthetic\"\" ETFs use them in Europe as a way to minimize tracking error as the return is guaranteed by the swap counterparty (for a charge). They also come with one signficant risk: counterparty credit risk. When trading with eToro, for as long as your position is open, you are at risk of eToro going bankrupt. If eToro failed, you do not actually own any stocks, you only own swap contracts which are going to be worthless if eToro ceased to exist. CFDs also have an ongoing cost to maintain the open position. This makes them less suitable for buy and hold strategies as those ongoing costs will eat into your returns. It's also not clear whether you would receive any dividends paid by the stock, which make up a significant proportion of returns for buy and hold investors. eToro's website is fairly non-committal: eToro intends to offer a financial compensation representing the dividends which will be allocated on stocks, to the extent such dividends shall be available to eToro. All of these points expose what CFDs are really for - speculating on the stock market, or as I like to call it: gambling. If you want to invest in stocks for the long term, CFDs are a bad idea - they have high ongoing costs and the counterparty risk becomes significant. Wait until you have enough money and then buy the real thing. Alternatively, consider mutual funds which will allow you to purchase partial shares and will ensure your investment is better diversified across a large number of stocks. If however, you want to gamble and only keep your position open for a short time, these issues may not be of concern to you. There's nothing wrong with gambling, it can be fun, many people gamble in casinos or on football matches - but bear in mind that's what CFDs are for. CFDs were in fact originally created for the UK market as a way to avoid paying capital gains tax when making short term speculative trades. However, if you are going to gamble, make sure you're not putting any more than 1% of your net worth at risk (0.1% may be a better target). There are a few other ways to take a position on stocks using less money than the share price: Fortunately, eToro do not allow leveraged purchase of stocks so you're reasonably safe on this point. They claim this is because of their 'responsible trading policy', although I find that somewhat questionable coming from a broker that offers 400:1 leverage on FX pairs. One final word on eToro's \"\"social trading\"\" feature. A few years ago I was in a casino playing Blackjack. I know nothing about Blackjack, but through sheer luck of the draw I managed to treble my money in a very small amount of time. Seeing this, a person behind me started \"\"following\"\" me by putting his chips down on my seat. Needless to say, I lost everything, but amazingly the person behind me got quite annoyed and started criticizing my strategy. The idea of following other people's trades just because they've been lucky in the past sounds entirely foolish to me. Remember the warning on every mutual fund: Past performance does not guarantee future returns\"" }, { "docid": "273761", "title": "", "text": "\"As you note, your question is inherently opinion-based. That said, if I were in your situation I would sell the stock all at once and buy whatever it is you want to buy (hopefully some index ETF or mutual fund). According to what I see, the current value of the HD stock is about $8500 and the JNJ stock is worth less than $500. With a total investment of less than $10,000, any gain you are likely to miss by liquidating now is not going to be huge in absolute terms. This is doubly true since you were given the stock, so you have no specific reason to believe it will do well at all. If you had picked it yourself based on careful analysis, it could be worth keeping if you \"\"believed in yourself\"\" (or even if you just wanted to test your acumen), but as it is the stock is essentially random. Even if you want to pursue an aggressive allocation, it doesn't make sense to allocate everything to one stock for no reason. If you were going to put everything in one stock, you'd want it to be a stock you had analyzed and picked. (I still think it would be a bad idea, but at least it would be a more defensible idea.) So I would say the risk of your lopsided allocation (just two companies, with more than 90% of the value in just one) outweighs any risk of missing out on a gain. If news breaks tomorrow that the CEO of Home Depot has been embezzling (or if Trump decides to go on the Twitter warpath for some reason), your investment could disappear. Another common way to think about it is: if you had $9000 today to buy stocks with, would you buy $8500 worth of HD and $500 worth of JNJ? If not, it probably doesn't make sense to hold them just because you happen to have them. The only potential exception to my advice above would be tax considerations. You didn't mention what your basis in the stock is. Looking at historical prices, it looks like if all the stock was 20 years old you'd have a gain of about $8000, and if all of it was 10 years old you'd have a gain of about $6000. If your tax situation is such that selling all the stock at once would push you into a higher tax bracket, it might make sense to sell only enough to fit into your current bracket, and sell the rest next year. However, I think this situation is unlikely because: A) since the stock has been held for a long time, most of the gains will be at the lower long-term rate; B) if you have solid income, you can probably afford the tax; and C) if you don't have solid income, your long-term capital gains rate will likely be zero.\"" }, { "docid": "66201", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a few major risks to doing something like that. First, you should never invest money you can't afford to lose. An emergency fund is money you can't afford to lose - by definition, you may need to have quick access to that money. If you determine that you need, for example, $3000 in emergency savings, that means that you need to have at least $3000 at all times - if you lose $500, then you now only have $2500 in emergency savings. Imagine what could've happened if you had invested your emergency savings during the 2008 crash, for example; you could easily have been in a position where you lost both your job and a good portion of your emergency savings at the same time, which is a terrible position to be in. If the car breaks down, you can't really say \"\"now's a bad time, wait until the stock market bounces back.\"\" Second, with brokerage accounts, there may be a delay before you can actually access the money or transfer it to an account that you can actually withdraw cash from or write checks against (but some of this depends on the exact arrangement you have with your bank). This can be a problem if you're in a situation where you need immediate access to the money - if your furnace breaks in the middle of winter, you probably don't want to wait a few days for the sale and transfer to go through before you can have it fixed. Third, you can be forced to sell the investments at an unfavorable price because you're not sure when you're going to need it. You'd also likely incur trading fees and/or early withdrawal penalties when you tried to withdraw the money. Think about it this way: if you buy a bond that matures in 5 years, you're effectively betting that you won't have an emergency for the next 5 years. If you do, you'll have to either sell the bond or, if you're allowed to get the money back early, you'll likely forfeit a good amount of the interest you earned in the process (which kind of kills the point of buying the bond in the first place). Edit: As @Barmar pointed out in the comments, you may also have to pay taxes on the profits if you sell at a favorable price. In the U.S. at least, capital gains on stuff held for less than a year is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate and stuff held longer than a year is taxed at the long-term capital gains tax rate. So, if you hold the investment for less than a year, you're opening yourself up to the risks of short-term stock fluctuations as well as potential tax penalties, so if you put your emergency fund in stocks you're essentially betting that you won't have an emergency that year (which by definition you can't know). The purpose of an emergency fund is just that - to be an emergency fund. Its purpose isn't really to make money.\"" }, { "docid": "165970", "title": "", "text": "The standard answer on any long term stock is hold on during the rough times. You have not lost anything until you sell. If your concern is just that you are not certain where the stock price is headed, unless you need the money now and can not afford to hold on to the stock then I would hold it." }, { "docid": "553253", "title": "", "text": "E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower." }, { "docid": "361345", "title": "", "text": "Short answer is to put the max 15% contribution into your ESPP. Long answer is that since you want to be saving as much as you can anyway, this is a great way to force you to do it, and pick up at least a 15% return every six months (or however often your plan makes a purchase). I say at least because sometimes an ESPP will give you the lower of the beginning or end period stock price, and then a 15% discount off of that (but check the details of your plan). If you feel like your company's stock is a good long term investment, then hold onto the shares when purchased. Otherwise sell as soon as you get them, and bank that 15% return." }, { "docid": "93129", "title": "", "text": "This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob" }, { "docid": "583378", "title": "", "text": "There's a lot of hype about HFT. It involves computers doing things that people don't really understand and making a bunch of rich guys a bunch of money, and there was a crisis and so we hate rich wall street guys this year, and so it's a hot-button issue. Meh. There's some reason for concern about the safety of the markets, but I think there's also a lot more of people trying to sell you a newspaper. Remember that while HFT may mean there are a lot of trades, the buying and the selling add up to the same thing. Meanwhile, people who buy stock to hold on to it for significant periods of time will still affect the quantity of stock out there on the market, applying pressure to the price, buying and selling at the prices that they think the security is worth. As a result, it's unlikely that high-frequency trading moves the stock price very far from the price that the rest of the market would determine for very long; if it did, the lower-frequency traders could take advantage of it, buying if it's too low and selling if it's too high. How long do you plan to hold a stock? If you're trying to do day-trading, you might have some trouble; these people are competing with you to do the same thing, and have significant resources at their disposal. If you're holding onto your stock for years on end (like you probably should be doing with most stock) then a trivial premium or discount on the price probably isn't going to be a big deal for you." }, { "docid": "121765", "title": "", "text": "The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation. Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on. Quite literally, any and all factors are fair game for a recommendation. So, the question isn't really what analysts do with financial data, it is what do analysts do with financial data that meets your investment needs? As an example, if you have two analysts, one who is focused on growth stocks, and one who is focused on dividend growth, they may have completely different views on a company. If both analysts were to analyze Apple (AAPL) 5 years ago, the dividend analyst would likely say SELL or at the most HOLD, because back then Apple did not have a dividend. However, an analyst focused on growth would likely have said BUY, because Apple appeared to be on a clear upward trend in terms of growth. Likewise, if you have analysts who are focused on shorting stocks, and ones who are focused on deep value investing, the sell analyst may be selling SELL because they are confident the stock will go down in price, so you can make money on the short position. Conversely, the deep value investor may be saying BUY, because they believe that based on the companies strong balance sheet, and recent shake-ups in management the stock will eventually turn around. Two completely different views for the same company: the analyst focused on shorting is looking to make money by capitalizing on falling share price, while the analyst focused on deep value is looking for unloved companies in a tailspin whom s/he believe will turn around, the thesis being that if you dollar-cost-average as the price drops, when it corrects, you'll reap the rewards. That all said, to answer the question about what analysts look for: So really, you should be looking for analysts who align with your investment style, and use those recommendations as a starting point for your own purchases. Personally, I am a dividend investor, so I have passed many BUY recommendations from analysts and my former broker because those were based on growth stories. That does not mean that the analysts, my former broker, or myself, are wrong. But we were all incorrect given the context of how I invest, and what they recommend." }, { "docid": "335375", "title": "", "text": "\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "378173", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are already invested in a particular stock, I like JoeTaxpayer's answer. Think about it as if you are re-buying the stocks you own every day you decide to keep them and don't set emotional anchor points about what you paid for them or what they might be worth tomorrow. These lead to two major logical fallacies that investor's commonly fall prey to, Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost, both of which can be bad for your portfolio in the long run. To avert these natural tendencies, I suggest having a game plan before you purchase a stock based on on your investment goals for that stock. For example a combination of one or more of the following: I'm investing for the long term and I expect this stock to appreciate and will hold it until (specific event/time) at which point I will (sell it all/sell it gradually over a fixed time period) right around the time I need the money. I'm going to bail on this stock if it falls more than X % from my purchase price. I'm going to cash out (all/half/some) of this investment if it gains more than x % from my purchase price to lock in my returns. The important thing is to arrive at a strategy before you are invested and are likely to be more emotional than rational. Otherwise, it can be very hard to sell a \"\"hot\"\" stock that has suddenly jumped in price 25% because \"\"it has momentum\"\" (gambler's fallacy). Conversely it can be hard to sell a stock when it drops by 25% because \"\"I know it will bounce back eventually\"\" (Sunk Cost/Loss Aversion Fallacy). Also, remember that there is opportunity cost from sticking with a losing investment because your brain is saying \"\"I really haven't lost money until I give up and sell it.\"\" When logically you should be thinking, \"\"If I move my money to a more promising investment I could get a better return than I am likely to on what I'm holding.\"\"\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "501214", "title": "", "text": "This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:" }, { "docid": "115134", "title": "", "text": "How I understand it is: supply/demand affect price of stock negatively/positively, respectively. Correct. Volume is the amount of buying/selling activity in these stocks (more volume = more fluctuation, right?). Sort of. Higher volume means higher liquidity. That is, a stock that is traded more is easier to trade. It doesn't necessarily mean more fluctuation and in the real world, it often means that these are well-understood stocks with a high amount of analyst coverage. This tends towards these stocks not being as volatile as smaller stocks with less liquidity. Company revenue (and profit) will help an investor predict company growth. That is one factor in a stock price. There are certain stocks that you would buy without them making a profit because their future revenue looks potentially explosive. However, these stocks are very risky and are bubble-prone. If you're starting out in the share market, it's generally a good idea to invest in index funds (I am not a broker, my advice should not be taken as financial advice). These funds aggregate risk by holding a lot of different companies. Also, statistics have shown that over time, buying and holding index funds long term tends to dramatically outperform other investment strategies, particularly for people with low amounts of capital." }, { "docid": "368348", "title": "", "text": "Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it." }, { "docid": "232880", "title": "", "text": "A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place." }, { "docid": "165970", "title": "", "text": "The standard answer on any long term stock is hold on during the rough times. You have not lost anything until you sell. If your concern is just that you are not certain where the stock price is headed, unless you need the money now and can not afford to hold on to the stock then I would hold it." }, { "docid": "170247", "title": "", "text": "I can think of a few simple and quick techniques for timing the market over the long term, and they can be used individually or in combination with each other. There are also some additional techniques to give early warning of possible turns in the market. The first is using a Moving Average (MA) as an indication of when to sell. Simply if the price closes below the MA it is time to sell. Obviously if the period you are looking at is long term you would probably use a weekly or even monthly chart and use a relatively large period MA such as a 50 week or 100 week moving average. The longer the period the more the MA will lag behind the price but the less false signals and whipsawing there will be. As we are looking long term (5 years +) I would use a weekly chart with a 100 week Exponential MA. The second technique is using a Rate Of Change (ROC) Indicator, which is a momentum indicator. The idea for timing the markets in the long term is to buy when the indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when it crosses below the zero line. For long term investing I would use a 13 week EMA of the 52 week ROC (the EMA smooths out the ROC indicator to reduce the chance of false signals). The beauty of these two indicators is they can be used effectively together. Below are examples of using these two indicators in combination on the S&P500 and the Australian S&P ASX200 over the past 20 years. S&P500 1995 to 2015 ASX200 1995 to 2015 If I was investing in an ETF tracking one of these indexes I would use these two indicators together by using the MA as an early warning system and maybe tighten any stop losses I have so that if the market takes a sudden turn downward the majority of my profits would be protected. I would then use the ROC Indicator to sell out completely out of the ETF when it crosses below zero or to buy back in when the ROC moves back above zero. As you can see in both charts the two indicators would have kept you out of the market during the worst of the downfalls in 2000 and 2008 for the S&P500 and 2008 for the ASX200. If there is a false signal that gets you out of the market you can quite easily get back in if the indicator goes back above zero. Using these indicators you would have gotten into the market 3 times and out of it twice for the S&P500 over a 20 year period. For the ASX200 you would have gone in 6 times and out 5 times, also over a 20 year period. For individual shares I would use the ROC indicator over the main index the shares belong to, to give an indication of when to be buying individual stocks and when to tighten stop losses and stay on the sidelines. My philosophy is to buy rising stocks in a rising market and sell falling stocks in a falling market. So if the ROC indicator is above zero I would be looking to buy fundamentally healthy stocks that are up-trending and place a 20% trailing stop loss on them. If I get stopped out of one stock then I would look to replace it with another as long as the ROC is still above zero. If the ROC indicator crosses below zero I would tighten my trailing stop losses to 5% and not buy any new stocks once I get stopped out. Some additional indicators I would use for individual stock would be trend lines and using the MACD as a momentum indicator. These two indicators can give you further early warning that the stock may be about to reverse from its current trend, so you can tighten your stop loss even if the ROC is still above zero. Here is an example chart to explain: GEM.AX 3 Year Weekly Chart Basically if the price closes below the trend line it may be time to close out the position or at the very least tighten up your trailing stop loss to 5%. If the price breaks below an established uptrend line it may well be the end of the uptrend. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. As GEM has broken below the uptrend line and has maid a lower low, all that is needed to confirm the uptrend is over is a lower high. But months before the price broke below the uptrend line, the MACD momentum indicator was showing bearish divergence between it and the price. In early September 2014 the price made a higher high but the MACD made a lower high. This is called a bearish divergence and is an early warning signal that the momentum in the uptrend is weakening and the trend could be reversing soon. Notice I said could and not would. In this situation I would reduce my trailing stop to 10% and keep a watchful eye on this stock over the coming months. There are many other indicators that could be used as signals or as early warnings, but I thought I would talk about some of my favourites and ones I use on a daily and weekly basis. If you were to employ any of these techniques into your investing or trading it may take a little while to learn about them properly and to implement them into your trading plan, but once you have done that you would only need to spend 1 to 2 hours per week managing your portfolio if trading long-term or about 1 hour per nigh (after market close) if trading more medium term." }, { "docid": "498075", "title": "", "text": "\"The response to this question will be different depending which of the investment philosophies you are using. Value investors look at the situation the company is in and try to determine what the company is worth and what it will be worth in the future. Then they look at the current stock price and decide whether or not the stock is priced at a good deal or not. If the stock price is priced lower than they believe the company is worth, they would want to buy stock, and if the price rises above what they believe to be the true value, they would sell. These types of investors are not looking at the history or trend of what the price has done in the past, only what the current price is and where they believe the price should be in the future. Technical analysis investors do something different. It is their belief that as stock prices go up and down, they generally follow patterns. By looking at a chart of what a stock price has been in the past, they try to predict where it is headed, and buy or sell based on that prediction. In general, value investors are longer-term investors, and technical analysis investors are short-term investors. The advice you are considering makes a lot of sense if you are using technical analysis. If you have a stock that is trending down, your strategy probably tells you to sell; buying more in the hopes of turning things around would be seen as a mistake. It is like the gambler in Vegas who keeps playing a game he is losing, hoping that his luck changes. However, for the value investor, the historical price of a stock, and even the amount you currently have gained or lost in the stock, are essentially ignored. All that matters is whether or not the stock price is above or below the true value determined by the investor. For him, if the stock price falls and he believes the company still has a high value, it could be a signal to buy more. The above advice doesn't really apply for them. Many investors don't follow either of these strategies. They believe that it is too difficult and risky to try to predict the future price of an individual stock. Instead, they invest in many companies all at once using index mutual funds, believing that the stock market as a whole always heads up over a long time frame. Those investors don't care at all if the prices of stock are going up or down. They simply keep investing each month, and hold until they have another use for the money. The above advice isn't useful for them at all. No matter which kind of investing you are doing, the most important thing is to pick a strategy you believe in and follow the plan without emotion. Emotions can cause investors to make mistakes and start buying when their strategy tells them to sell. Instead of trying to follow fortune cookie advice like \"\"Don't throw good money after bad,\"\" choose an investment strategy, make a plan, test it, and follow it, cautiously (after all, it may be a bad plan). For what it is worth, I am the third type of investor listed above. I don't buy individual stocks, and I don't look at the stock prices when investing more each month. Your description of your own strategy as \"\"buy and hold\"\" suggests you might prefer the same approach.\"" }, { "docid": "594935", "title": "", "text": "\"From some of your previous questions it seems like you trade quite often, so I am assuming you are not a \"\"Buy and Hold\"\" person. If that is the case, then have you got a written Trading Plan? Considering you don't know what to do after a 40% drop, I assume the answer to this is that you don't have a Trading Plan. Before you enter any trade you should have your exit point for that trade pre-determined, and this should be included in your Trading Plan. You should also include how you pick the shares you buy, do you use fundamental analysis, technical analysis, a combination of the two, a dart board or some kind of advisory service? Then finally and most importantly you should have your position sizing and risk management incorporated into your Plan. If you are doing all this, and had automatic stop loss orders placed when you entered your buy orders, then you would have been out of the stock well before your loss got to 40%. If you are looking to hang on and hoping for the stock to recover, remember with a 40% drop, the stock will now need to rise by 67% just for you to break even on the trade. Even if the stock did recover, how long would it take? There is the potential for opportunity loss waiting for this stock to recover, and that might take years. If the stock has fallen by 40% in a short time it is most likely that it will continue to fall in the short term, and if it falls to 50%, then the recovery would need to be 100% just for you to break even. Leave your emotions out of your trading as much as possible, have a written Trading Plan which incorporates your risk management. A good book to read on the psychology of the markets, position sizing and risk management is \"\"Trade your way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp (I actually went to see him talk tonight in Sydney, all the way over from the USA).\"" }, { "docid": "300698", "title": "", "text": "One answer in four days tells you this is a niche, else there should be many replies by now. The bible is McMillan on Options Note - I link to the 1996 edition which starts at 39 cents, the latest revision will set you back $30 used. The word bible says it all, it offers a great course in options, everything you need to know. You don't get a special account for option trading. You just apply to your regular broker, so depending what you wish to do, the amount starts at You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that. Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000. Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience. You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that. Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000. Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience." }, { "docid": "395506", "title": "", "text": "No, at least not noticeably so. The majority of what HFT does is to take advantage of the fact that there is a spread between buy and sell orders on the exchange, and to instantly fill both orders, gaining relatively risk-free profit from some inherent inefficiencies in how the market prices stocks. The end result is that intraday trading of the non-HFT nature, as well as speculative short-term trading will be less profitable, since HFT will cause the buy/sell spread to be closer than it would otherwise be. Buying and holding will be (largely) unaffected since the spread that HFT takes advantage of is miniscule compared to the gains a stock will experience over time. For example, when you go to buy shares intending to hold them for a long time, the HFT might cost you say, 1 to 2 cents per share. When you go to sell the share, HFT might cost you the same again. But, if you held it for a long time, the share might have doubled or tripled in value over the time you held it, so the overall effect of that 2-4 cents per share lost from HFT is negligible. However, since the HFT is doing this millions of times per day, that 1 cent (or more commonly a fraction of a cent) adds up to HFTs making millions. Individually it doesn't affect anyone that much, but collectively it represents a huge loss of value, and whether this is acceptable or not is still a subject of much debate!" }, { "docid": "583378", "title": "", "text": "There's a lot of hype about HFT. It involves computers doing things that people don't really understand and making a bunch of rich guys a bunch of money, and there was a crisis and so we hate rich wall street guys this year, and so it's a hot-button issue. Meh. There's some reason for concern about the safety of the markets, but I think there's also a lot more of people trying to sell you a newspaper. Remember that while HFT may mean there are a lot of trades, the buying and the selling add up to the same thing. Meanwhile, people who buy stock to hold on to it for significant periods of time will still affect the quantity of stock out there on the market, applying pressure to the price, buying and selling at the prices that they think the security is worth. As a result, it's unlikely that high-frequency trading moves the stock price very far from the price that the rest of the market would determine for very long; if it did, the lower-frequency traders could take advantage of it, buying if it's too low and selling if it's too high. How long do you plan to hold a stock? If you're trying to do day-trading, you might have some trouble; these people are competing with you to do the same thing, and have significant resources at their disposal. If you're holding onto your stock for years on end (like you probably should be doing with most stock) then a trivial premium or discount on the price probably isn't going to be a big deal for you." }, { "docid": "16175", "title": "", "text": "\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \"\"sell high buy low\"\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\"" }, { "docid": "344372", "title": "", "text": "I like C. Ross and MrChrister's advice to not be heavily weighted in one stock over the long run, especially the stock of your employer. I'll add this: One thing you really ought to find out – and this is where your tax advisor is likely able to help – is whether your company's stock options plan use qualified incentive stock options (ISO) or non-qualified stock options (NQO or NSO). See Wikipedia - Incentive stock option for details. From my understanding, only if your plan is a qualified (or statutory) ISO and you hold the shares for at least 1 year of the date of exercise and 2 years from the date of the option grant could your gain be considered a long-term capital gain. As opposed to: if your options are non-qualified, then your gain may be considered ordinary income no matter how long you wait – in which case there's no tax benefit to waiting to cash out. In terms of hedging the risk if you do choose to hold long, here are some ideas: Sell just enough stock at exercise (i.e. taking some tax hit up front) to at least recover your principal, so your original money is no longer at risk, or If your company has publicly listed options – which is unlikely, if they are very small – then you could purchase put options to insure against losses in your stock. Try a symbol lookup at the CBOE. Note: Hedging with put options is an advanced strategy and I suggest you learn more and seek advice from a pro if you want to consider this route. You'll also need to find out if there are restrictions on trading your employer's public stock or options – many companies have restrictions or black-out periods on employee trading, especially for people who have inside knowledge." }, { "docid": "374797", "title": "", "text": "\"There's no free lunch. Here are some positions that should be economically equivalent (same risk and reward) in a theoretically-pure universe with no regulations or transaction costs: You're proposing to buy the call. If you look at the equivalent, stock plus protective put, you can quickly see the \"\"catch\"\"; the protective put is expensive. That same expense is embedded in the call option. See put-call parity on Wikipedia for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity You could easily pay 10% a year or more for the protection, which could easily eat up most of your returns, if you consider that average returns on a stock index might be about 10% (nominal, not real). Another way to look at it is that buying the long call and selling a put, which is a synthetic long position in the stock, would give you the put premium. So by not selling the put, you should be worse off than owning the stock - worse than the synthetic long - by about the value of the put premium. Or yet another way to look at it is that you're repeatedly paying time value on the long call option as you roll it. In practical world instead of theory world, I think you'd probably get a noticeable hit to returns just from bid-ask and commissions, even without the cost of the protection. Options cost more. Digressing a bit, some practical complications of equivalency between different combinations of options and underlying are: Anyway, roughly speaking, any position without the \"\"downside risk\"\" is going to have an annual loss built in due to the cost of the protection. Occasionally the options market can do something weird due to supply/demand or liquidity issues but mostly the parity relationships hold, or hold closely enough that you can't profit once expenses are considered. Update: one note, I'm talking about \"\"vanilla\"\" options as traded in the US here, I guess there are some somewhat different products elsewhere; I'm not sure exactly which derivatives you mean. All derivatives have a cost though or nobody would take the other side of the trade.\"" }, { "docid": "451737", "title": "", "text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"" }, { "docid": "245728", "title": "", "text": "I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way. Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book. It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays. Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company. In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company. How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate. You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic. Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing. Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it. Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price. It is good to look at index funds as a diversification. Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars. Big deal. How much money could you earn during that time period? Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time. If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double. Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing. Start building funds that can compound. Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant. The key is to get money to compound!" }, { "docid": "292045", "title": "", "text": "\"When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider \"\"rolling\"\" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan\"" }, { "docid": "306460", "title": "", "text": "No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits." }, { "docid": "561997", "title": "", "text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky." } ]

[ { "docid": "90294", "title": "", "text": "For what it's worth -- and I realize this isn't directly an answer to the question -- one of the advantages of sticking with mutual funds, beyond their being inherently diversified, is that it removes a lot of the temptation to try to time the market. When you need money, you sell shares in such a way that it maintains your preferred investment ratio, and simply don't worry about which stocks are actually involved. (I've gotten 15% APR this year across all my investments, for absolutely minimal effort. That's quite good enough for me.)" } ]

[ { "docid": "310683", "title": "", "text": "It depends on what your investment goals are. Are you investing for the short-term or the long-term? What was your reason for investing in these stocks in the first place? Timing short-term fluctuations in the market is very difficult, so if that's your goal, I wouldn't count on being able to sell and buy back in at exactly the right time. Rather, I think you should think about what your investment rationale was in the first place, and whether or not that rationale still holds. If it does, then hold on to the stocks. If it doesn't, then sell." }, { "docid": "511678", "title": "", "text": "I think people in general tend to unnecessarily over-complicate this issue. Here's what I think you should do in any situation like this: First and foremost, put all tax considerations aside and decide whether it makes sense to sell the stock now or hold on to it for the long term based on its merits as an investment. Tax considerations have absolutely nothing to do with whether the stock is a good investment. If you consider all non-tax factors and decide to hold on to it for the long term, then you can use the tax considerations as a very minor input to how long you should hold it - in other words, don't set your time horizon to 17.5 months if waiting another 2 weeks gives you better tax treatment. You're going to pay taxes on your gains no matter what. The only difference is whether you pay capital gains tax or income tax. Granted, the income tax rate is higher, but wouldn't it suck if you pay a LOT less tax only because you have a LOT less value in your stock? So to answer your question - I would say, absolutely not, tax consequences do not make it worthwhile to hold on to your ESPP shares. If you decide to hold on to your ESPP for other reasons (and they better be good ones to put that much free profit at risk), only then should you look at the tax consequences to help fine-tune your strategy." }, { "docid": "335375", "title": "", "text": "\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\"" }, { "docid": "478600", "title": "", "text": "\"The tax comes when you close the position. If the option expires worthless it's as if you bought it back for $0. There's a short-term capital gain for the difference between your short-sale price and your buyback price on the option. I believe the capital gain is always short-term because short sales are treated as short-term even if you hold them open more than one year. If the option is exercised (calling away your stock) then you add the premium to your sale price on the stock and then compute the capital gain. So in this case you can end up treating the premium as a long-term capital gain. See IRS pub 550 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010619 Search for \"\"Writers of puts and calls\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "121765", "title": "", "text": "The short answer: it depends. The long answer.. Off the top of my head, there are quite a number of factors that an analyst may look at when analyzing a stock, to come up with a recommendation. Some example factors to look at include: The list goes on. Quite literally, any and all factors are fair game for a recommendation. So, the question isn't really what analysts do with financial data, it is what do analysts do with financial data that meets your investment needs? As an example, if you have two analysts, one who is focused on growth stocks, and one who is focused on dividend growth, they may have completely different views on a company. If both analysts were to analyze Apple (AAPL) 5 years ago, the dividend analyst would likely say SELL or at the most HOLD, because back then Apple did not have a dividend. However, an analyst focused on growth would likely have said BUY, because Apple appeared to be on a clear upward trend in terms of growth. Likewise, if you have analysts who are focused on shorting stocks, and ones who are focused on deep value investing, the sell analyst may be selling SELL because they are confident the stock will go down in price, so you can make money on the short position. Conversely, the deep value investor may be saying BUY, because they believe that based on the companies strong balance sheet, and recent shake-ups in management the stock will eventually turn around. Two completely different views for the same company: the analyst focused on shorting is looking to make money by capitalizing on falling share price, while the analyst focused on deep value is looking for unloved companies in a tailspin whom s/he believe will turn around, the thesis being that if you dollar-cost-average as the price drops, when it corrects, you'll reap the rewards. That all said, to answer the question about what analysts look for: So really, you should be looking for analysts who align with your investment style, and use those recommendations as a starting point for your own purchases. Personally, I am a dividend investor, so I have passed many BUY recommendations from analysts and my former broker because those were based on growth stories. That does not mean that the analysts, my former broker, or myself, are wrong. But we were all incorrect given the context of how I invest, and what they recommend." }, { "docid": "193717", "title": "", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"" }, { "docid": "376800", "title": "", "text": "The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused." }, { "docid": "378173", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are already invested in a particular stock, I like JoeTaxpayer's answer. Think about it as if you are re-buying the stocks you own every day you decide to keep them and don't set emotional anchor points about what you paid for them or what they might be worth tomorrow. These lead to two major logical fallacies that investor's commonly fall prey to, Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost, both of which can be bad for your portfolio in the long run. To avert these natural tendencies, I suggest having a game plan before you purchase a stock based on on your investment goals for that stock. For example a combination of one or more of the following: I'm investing for the long term and I expect this stock to appreciate and will hold it until (specific event/time) at which point I will (sell it all/sell it gradually over a fixed time period) right around the time I need the money. I'm going to bail on this stock if it falls more than X % from my purchase price. I'm going to cash out (all/half/some) of this investment if it gains more than x % from my purchase price to lock in my returns. The important thing is to arrive at a strategy before you are invested and are likely to be more emotional than rational. Otherwise, it can be very hard to sell a \"\"hot\"\" stock that has suddenly jumped in price 25% because \"\"it has momentum\"\" (gambler's fallacy). Conversely it can be hard to sell a stock when it drops by 25% because \"\"I know it will bounce back eventually\"\" (Sunk Cost/Loss Aversion Fallacy). Also, remember that there is opportunity cost from sticking with a losing investment because your brain is saying \"\"I really haven't lost money until I give up and sell it.\"\" When logically you should be thinking, \"\"If I move my money to a more promising investment I could get a better return than I am likely to on what I'm holding.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "165970", "title": "", "text": "The standard answer on any long term stock is hold on during the rough times. You have not lost anything until you sell. If your concern is just that you are not certain where the stock price is headed, unless you need the money now and can not afford to hold on to the stock then I would hold it." }, { "docid": "93129", "title": "", "text": "This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob" }, { "docid": "257835", "title": "", "text": "The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold." }, { "docid": "216757", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"" }, { "docid": "507276", "title": "", "text": "\"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \"\"Income tax\"\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \"\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\"\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \"\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\"\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \"\"Dividend Distribution Tax\"\"? Paid by the company. What is \"\"Capital Gains\"\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\"" }, { "docid": "273761", "title": "", "text": "\"As you note, your question is inherently opinion-based. That said, if I were in your situation I would sell the stock all at once and buy whatever it is you want to buy (hopefully some index ETF or mutual fund). According to what I see, the current value of the HD stock is about $8500 and the JNJ stock is worth less than $500. With a total investment of less than $10,000, any gain you are likely to miss by liquidating now is not going to be huge in absolute terms. This is doubly true since you were given the stock, so you have no specific reason to believe it will do well at all. If you had picked it yourself based on careful analysis, it could be worth keeping if you \"\"believed in yourself\"\" (or even if you just wanted to test your acumen), but as it is the stock is essentially random. Even if you want to pursue an aggressive allocation, it doesn't make sense to allocate everything to one stock for no reason. If you were going to put everything in one stock, you'd want it to be a stock you had analyzed and picked. (I still think it would be a bad idea, but at least it would be a more defensible idea.) So I would say the risk of your lopsided allocation (just two companies, with more than 90% of the value in just one) outweighs any risk of missing out on a gain. If news breaks tomorrow that the CEO of Home Depot has been embezzling (or if Trump decides to go on the Twitter warpath for some reason), your investment could disappear. Another common way to think about it is: if you had $9000 today to buy stocks with, would you buy $8500 worth of HD and $500 worth of JNJ? If not, it probably doesn't make sense to hold them just because you happen to have them. The only potential exception to my advice above would be tax considerations. You didn't mention what your basis in the stock is. Looking at historical prices, it looks like if all the stock was 20 years old you'd have a gain of about $8000, and if all of it was 10 years old you'd have a gain of about $6000. If your tax situation is such that selling all the stock at once would push you into a higher tax bracket, it might make sense to sell only enough to fit into your current bracket, and sell the rest next year. However, I think this situation is unlikely because: A) since the stock has been held for a long time, most of the gains will be at the lower long-term rate; B) if you have solid income, you can probably afford the tax; and C) if you don't have solid income, your long-term capital gains rate will likely be zero.\"" }, { "docid": "317803", "title": "", "text": "\"Maria, there are a few questions I think you must consider when considering this problem. Do fundamental or technical strategies provide meaningful information? Are the signals they produce actionable? In my experience, and many quantitative traders will probably say similar things, technical analysis is unlikely to provide anything meaningful. Of course you may find phenomena when looking back on data and a particular indicator, but this is often after the fact. One cannot action-ably trade these observations. On the other hand, it does seem that fundamentals can play a crucial role in the overall (typically long run) dynamics of stock movement. Here are two examples, Technical: suppose we follow stock X and buy every time the price crosses above the 30 day moving average. There is one obvious issue with this strategy - why does this signal have significance? If the method is designed arbitrarily then the answer is that it does not have significance. Moreover, much of the research supports that stocks move close to a geometric brownian motion with jumps. This supports the implication that the system is meaningless - if the probability of up or down is always close to 50/50 then why would an average based on the price be predictive? Fundamental: Suppose we buy stocks with the best P/E ratios (defined by some cutoff). This makes sense from a logical perspective and may have some long run merit. However, there is always a chance that an internal blowup or some macro event creates a large loss. A blended approach: for sake of balance perhaps we consider fundamentals as a good long-term indication of growth (what quants might call drift). We then restrict ourselves to equities in a particular index - say the S&P500. We compare the growth of these stocks vs. their P/E ratios and possibly do some regression. A natural strategy would be to sell those which have exceeded the expected return given the P/E ratio and buy those which have underperformed. Since all equities we are considering are in the same index, they are most likely somewhat correlated (especially when traded in baskets). If we sell 10 equities that are deemed \"\"too high\"\" and buy 10 which are \"\"too low\"\" we will be taking a neutral position and betting on convergence of the spread to the market average growth. We have this constructed a hedged position using a fundamental metric (and some helpful statistics). This method can be categorized as a type of index arbitrage and is done (roughly) in a similar fashion. If you dig through some data (yahoo finance is great) over the past 5 years on just the S&P500 I'm sure you'll find plenty of signals (and perhaps profitable if you calibrate with specific numbers). Sorry for the long and rambling style but I wanted to hit a few key points and show a clever methods of using fundamentals.\"" }, { "docid": "361345", "title": "", "text": "Short answer is to put the max 15% contribution into your ESPP. Long answer is that since you want to be saving as much as you can anyway, this is a great way to force you to do it, and pick up at least a 15% return every six months (or however often your plan makes a purchase). I say at least because sometimes an ESPP will give you the lower of the beginning or end period stock price, and then a 15% discount off of that (but check the details of your plan). If you feel like your company's stock is a good long term investment, then hold onto the shares when purchased. Otherwise sell as soon as you get them, and bank that 15% return." }, { "docid": "213366", "title": "", "text": "I think you need to be very careful here. Covered calls don't reduce risk or increase performance overall. If they did, every investment manager would be using them. In a typical portfolio, over the long term, the gains you give up when your stock goes beyond the strike of your calls will negate the premiums you receive over time. Psychologically, covered calls are appealing because your gains happen over a long period and this is why many people suggest it. But if you believe the Black-Scholes model (used for pricing options) this is what the model predicts over the long term - that you won't do any better than just holding stock (unless you have some edge other traders don't). Now you say you want to reduce diversification and raise your risk. Keeping in mind that there is no free lunch, there are several ways to reduce your risk but they all come at a price. For simplicity, there are three elements to consider - risk, potential gain and cash. These are tradeoffs and you can't simultaneously make them all favorable. You must trade one or more of them to gain in the others. Let's say you wanted to concentrate into a few stocks... how could you counteract the additional risk? 1) Covered calls: very popular strategy usually intended (erroneously) for increasing returns. You get the bonus of cash along with marginally less risk. But you give up a substantial amount of potential return. You won't have blowout returns if you do this. You still face substantial risk. 2) Collar your stock: You sell a covered call while using the cash from the sale to buy puts for protection. You give up potential gains, you're neutral on cash but gain significantly on reducing risk. 3) Use calls as proxy for stock: You don't hold stock but only calls in equivalent delta to the stock you would have held. Substantially lower risk while still having potential gain. Your tradeoff is the cash you have to pay for the calls. When using this, one must be very, very careful not to overleverage. 4) Puts as protection for stocks: This is basically the same as #3 in tradeoffs. You won't overleverage and you also get dividends. But for the most part it's the same. These are the main ways to reduce the risk you gain by concentrating. Options themselves are far broader. But keep in mind that there is no free money. All these techniques involve tradeoffs that you have to be aware of." }, { "docid": "501214", "title": "", "text": "This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:" }, { "docid": "306460", "title": "", "text": "No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits." } ]

[ { "docid": "236482", "title": "", "text": "\"In most cases, the other classes of shares are preferred stock (example, JPM-F). Preferred stock usually pays higher dividends and shareholders get preferential treatment in the event that the company goes under. (Preferred shareholders are behind bondholders in line, but ahead of common stock holders) In other cases, different classes of shares have different voting rights or pricing. Examples include Berkshire Hathaway B shares. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway B shares, the stock has 1/500th of the rights and 1/10,000th of the voting rights of an \"\"A\"\" share. You need to be cautious about investing in anything other than common stock -- make sure that you understand what you are getting into. This is not to say that other share classes are 'bad' -- just that many preferred stocks are thinly traded and are difficult to buy and sell.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "523393", "title": "", "text": "\"I did once read a book titled \"\"How I made a million dollars on the stock market\"\". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck. (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, \"\"smart\"\" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal). Clearly not a matter of \"\"playing your cards right\"\", but of having an enormous amount of luck.\"" }, { "docid": "273837", "title": "", "text": "More money doesn't make people richer in the sense that if the govt gave every citizen a $1 they would all still have the same amount of wealth and purchasing power, but their nominal value in dollar terms would be $1 higher. Money is just the denominator in exchange, so lets say a bicycle is $100 and a scooter is $200, you know that 2 bikes equals 1 scooter. So printing $100 for people to each buy a bicycle will just make the price of bikes go up, and they'll end up costing much more than $100, so no real wealth has been created. The main problem that I think you're trying to identify i that we've had an over-expansion of credit by central banks around the world. The scarcity of credit is a good thing because it forces only the best, most productive ideas to be allowed to be undertaken. If a bank only has $10 to loan, and business man A can use that to have a return of 50%, business man B can have 25%, and business man C can have 5%, then the obvious choice is to give the loan to business man A because he is using the resources most productively, and depending on the details of his business model, is the least risky person to loan to (ie the bank is most assured he will be able to pay his money back). But with central banks controlling interest rates, and reserve requirements for banks, the banks can lever themselves up and lend out much more money than they've taken in. After all if a bank can finance its reserves with low interest rates, but make additional money from increased lending, then they are incentivised to seek higher profits. Especially with the FDIC insuring everyone's bank deposits. So now businessmen A, B and C all get their loans and are able to start their businesses, but they're all in the same line of work and need to utilize the same resources. So now instead of just businessman A buying materials he has two other buyers looking to utilize a scarce amount of resources. The price of those resources is now higher since supply is limited but demand has tripled. So now businessman A can only make 40% through his business, B can make 5% and businessman C loses money in his venture. A and B pay their loan back but C is unable to. Ignoring interest, for the sake of simplicity, the bank has essentially broken even. Before leveraging up they loaned out $10 and got back $10. After leveraging they loaned out $30 and got back 20. So the problem you're seeing is excessive credit permitting ventures to be undertaken that should not have been allowed to be. The problem is interest rates that are not set by the market, but by a centralized bureau who couldn't possibly have enough information to determine what the cost of financing should be." }, { "docid": "199354", "title": "", "text": "What I find hilarious about this is that the middle class thought they actually had that value in the first place. Looks like the hood has been pulled off and they now realize 'oh wait you mean Im actually very poor'. Yes, your house was not worth that much. In fact its value may still be inflated. This goes doubly true for the over extended and failing suburban sprawl 'experiment' that began in the 70s. Its all been stolen b/c a generation wasnt taught about how money actually works. Its sad but maybe now people will pay attention to politics and economics and do something about our disastrous policies." }, { "docid": "453829", "title": "", "text": "At the most basic level, the employee is getting a share of ownership in the company and would get a percentage of the sales price. That said, as littleadv alluded to, different share classes have different priorities and get paid in different orders. In a bankruptcy, for example, some classes almost never get paid in practice because they are so far down the ladder of priority. The first step you should take would be to try to clarify what you are getting with the company itself. Failing that, contact a financial professional or an attorney in your area who can read the terms and give you a better understanding of the contract before you sign." }, { "docid": "102904", "title": "", "text": "This is a Vanguard-specific difference in the sense that in the US, Vanguard is a leader in lowering management fees for the mutual funds that they offer. Of course, several US mutual fund companies have also been lowering the expense ratio of their mutual funds in recent years because more and more investors have been paying attention to this particular performance parameter, and opting for funds that have low expense ratios. But many US funds have not reduced their expense ratios very much and continue to have expense ratios of 1% or even higher. For example, American Funds Developing World Growth and Income Fund (DWGAX) charges a 1.39% expense ratio while their 2060 Retirement Fund (AANTX) charges 1.12% (the funds also have a 5.75% sales charge); Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund charges 1.91% for their Class C shares, and so on. Many funds with high expense ratios (and sometimes sales charges as well) show up as options in far too many 401(k) plans, especially 401(k) plans of small companies, because small companies do not enjoy economies of scale and do not have much negotiating power when dealing with 401(k) custodians and administrators." }, { "docid": "91208", "title": "", "text": "Berkshire Hathaway issues first ever-negative coupon security from back in 2002 had this part: The warrants will give the holder the right to purchase either shares of the Company's class A or class B common stock at the holder’s option. The initial exercise price represents a 15% premium over the closing price of the class A shares on the NYSE on May 21, 2002. The Notes will pay holders a 3.0% interest rate per annum and holders will pay 3.75% installment payments per annum on the warrants. The warrant payments due from holders will be greater than the coupon on the senior notes, effectively making SQUARZ the first negative coupon security. Berkshire Hathaway will use the net proceeds from the issuance for general corporate purposes, including possible acquisitions, none of which are pending. This would be an example where the strike price was 15% higher than the closing price yet the security sold well." }, { "docid": "181985", "title": "", "text": "\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \"\"Class C Settlement Agreement\"\" in the S-3 filing\"" }, { "docid": "550992", "title": "", "text": "\"I can address what it means to \"\"pick off\"\" all those trades... As quantycuenta & littleadv have said, it is absolutely true that professionals \"\"prey\"\" on less-sophisticated market participants. They aren't in the market for charity's sake. If you're not familiar with the definition of the word \"\"arbitrage\"\", look it up. One possible strategy that can be employed with HFT machinery in order to arbitrage successfully in the stock market is to 'intercept' orders that are placed on various exchanges. In order to do this, an HFT organization watches all the transactions at once to find opportunities to buy low and sell high. A good explanation of it is described here in this NY Times article; I'll paraphrase what that article lays out. Stocks are traded through multiple exchanges The first key point to understand is that stocks listed on one exchange (i.e. the NYSE) can be sold on multiple exchanges. That's where the actual \"\"I would like to sell 100 shares of Ford stock\"\" is matched with \"\"I would like to buy 100 shares of Ford stock.\"\" There are multiple clearinghouses on the various exchanges. Your order gets presented to one exchange at a Time An ideal market maker would like to look at the order books for a given stock, say Ford, and see that in exchange A there's a sell order for 100 shares of F at $15.85, and in exchange B there's a buy order for 100 shares of F at $15.90. Arbitrage Market maker buys from A, sells in B, and pockets $0.05 * 100... $5. It's not much, but it was relatively risk free. Also, scale this up to the scale of the US' multiple stock exchanges, and there are lots of opportunities to make $5 every second. Computers are (of course) faster than people To tie it in completely with your question about 'picking off trades', HFT rigs can be set up and programmed to go faster than an average retail investor's order. Let's say you execute the trade to buy 100 shares @ $15.85 as a retail investor. The HFT rigs see your order starting to make the rounds of the different exchanges that your brokerage works through, and go out in front in a matter of milliseconds, finding the orders that are less than $15.85 and less than or equal to 100 shares. They execute a transaction, buy them up, sell to you, and pocket the difference. You have been \"\"picked off\"\". It's admittedly not the only way to use HFT equipment to make money, but it's definitely one way to do it.\"" }, { "docid": "510363", "title": "", "text": "International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)" }, { "docid": "64213", "title": "", "text": "\"Take the case where a stock has just two owners, A and B, both at $10. One of them sells his shares to C, at $11. Now B has made $1 in profit but is no longer an owner of the stock. A hasn't sold anything but his shares are worth 10% more due to the last traded price printed. C has bought shares at $11 and the price is $11, so technically he hasn't lost any money. In a larger market, there are winners and losers every day on a single stock, but they may not remain owners of a stock. There could be days in which those that remain owners are all winners - say when a stock goes up to an all time high and all those that are currently owners have an average buy price lower than the last traded price. And the reverse applies too. It is of course more complicated. Say you own a stock and let someone else \"\"borrow\"\" it for a short-selling opportunity (he sells it in the market). For each uptick in price, you win, the short seller loses, and the guy he sold it to also wins. A person that has a covered call on a stock is not a winner beyond a point. And so on.\"" }, { "docid": "79445", "title": "", "text": "Assuming no debt, as you've specified in the comments to your question, the assets should generally be distributed proportional to ownership share. BUT, without any sort of agreement, there might be contention on what each investor's share is and that might get fought out in court. With a corporation issuing shares, the corporate charter probably defines the relationship between different classes of shares (or specifies only one class). For a partnership though, you could conceivable have people making claims of ownership stake based on labor in addition to any cash that they put up. Messy if there's no up-front agreement." }, { "docid": "205208", "title": "", "text": "\"Following comments to your question here, you posted a separate question about why SPY, SPX, and the options contract don't move perfectly together. That's here Why don't SPY, SPX, and the e-mini s&p 500 track perfectly with each other? I provided an answer to that question and will build on it to answer what I think you're asking on this question. Specifically, I explained what it means that these are \"\"all based on the S&P.\"\" Each is a different entity, and different market forces keep them aligned. I think talking about \"\"technicals\"\" on options contracts is going to be too confusing since they are really a very different beast based on forward pricing models, so, for this question, I'll focus on only SPY and SPX. As in my other answer, it's only through specific market forces (the creation / redemption mechanism that I described in my other answer), that they track at all. There's nothing automatic about this and it has nothing to do with some issuer of SPY actually holding stock in the companies that comprise the SPX index. (That's not to say that the company does or doesn't hold, just that this doesn't drive the prices.) What ever technical signals you're tracking, will reflect all of the market forces at play. For SPX (the index), that means some aggregate behavior of the component companies, computed in a \"\"mathematically pure\"\" way. For SPY (the ETF), that means (a) the behavior of SPX and (b) the behavior of the ETF as it trades on the market, and (c) the action of the authorized participants. These are simply different things. Which one is \"\"right\"\"? That depends on what you want to do. In theory you might be able to do some analysis of technical signals on SPY and SPX and, for example, use that to make money on the way that they fail to track each other. If you figure out how to do that, though, don't post it here. Send it to me directly. :)\"" }, { "docid": "256717", "title": "", "text": "I would say the real story is less about the implications of low vol but rather what has caused it. IMO that would be: 1) lots of money chasing a handful of investments a) loose monetary policy b) wealth effects from fantastic returns since the GR c) consolidation in various sectors (health, energy, tech) 2) rise of low cost index funds (all inflow go into the large swathes of the market so volatility across stocks is dampened) 3) various externalities of expansionary Fed policy a) resulting low bond yields lead to larger flows into equities b) low cost of debt feeding buybacks c) it has been sustained for so long it has had stabilizing effect i.e. predictability is good for markets and business decision making These factors make for an interesting story because what happens when some component of this system begins to show cracks? What happens when this low vol feedback loop ceases? Nobody knows. But it will not continue ad infinitum. Not all doom and gloom but it won't be the market we are used to today." }, { "docid": "328341", "title": "", "text": "An LLC does not pay taxes on profits. As regards tax a LLC is treated as a Partnership, but instead of partners they are called members. The LLC is a passthrough entity. As in Partnerships members can have a different percentage ownership to the share of profits. The LLC reports the share of the profits of the members. Then the members pay the tax as an individual. The profit of the LLC is deemed to have been transferred to the members regardless of any funds transferred. This is often the case as the LLC may need to retain the profits for use in the business. Late paying customers may mean there is less cash in the LLC than is available to distribute. The first answer is wrong, only a C corporation files a tax return. All other corporate structures are passthrough entities. The C corporation pays corporation tax and is not required to pass any funds to the shareholders. If the C corporation passes funds to the shareholders this is a dividend, and taxable to the shareholder, hence double taxation." }, { "docid": "569565", "title": "", "text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"" }, { "docid": "148728", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \"\"sell to close\"\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \"\"sold to close\"\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\"" }, { "docid": "435963", "title": "", "text": "A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions." }, { "docid": "138383", "title": "", "text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general." }, { "docid": "372615", "title": "", "text": "If there was no question of improvements to the property, the problem would be simple. Each person invests whatever amount. Calculate the percentage of each person's investment out of the entire investment, and that's what share each one owns. Like: A puts in $10,000 for the deposit and pays $5,000 toward the mortgage over the next however many years. B puts in $5,000 toward the deposit but pays $7,000 of the mortgage. C puts in $15,000 but pays only $1,000 of the mortgage payments. So total investments: A - $15,000, B - $12,000, C - $16,000. Total - $43,000. So A's share of the house is 15,000/43,000 = 34.9%. Etc. If you then sell it you pay off any outstanding debt, and then everybody gets their share of what's left. But once you start making improvements, there is no simple formula. Suppose you put down new flooring in the dining room. You pay $500 for materials and put in 20 hours of labor. Presumably you have now added something more than $500 to your share, but how much more? How much are the hours worth? What if someone damages the house -- puts a hole in the all or something -- and then fixes it. Does the time and effort they put into fixing it add to their investment, or did that just cancel out the damage they did? What if one person does a lot to keep the house in generally good condition in small snippets of time, like cleaning furnace filters and polishing the floors, while another does nothing and lets their share get run down and dirty? It gets very complicated. Theoretically you could come up with a rate at which you value your work -- like say every hour spent maintaining the house is worth $10 or $20 or whatever. But who's going to keep track of it over the course of potentially many years? And what if one person does a small number of big, easily quantifiable jobs, while another does many small, hard-to-count jobs? Like if A mops the floor every week for 2 years, is that worth more or less than B installing 3 ceiling fans, a door, and 2 windows? You could go around and around on this sort of thing." } ]

[ { "docid": "433032", "title": "", "text": "Classes of shares are not necessarily standardized. Some share classes have preference above others in the event of a liquidation. Some share classes represent a different proportion of ownership interest. Any time you see multiple share classes, you need to research what is different for that specific corporation." } ]

[ { "docid": "439071", "title": "", "text": "What makes it hard is that you're making this decision now, when you've already made decisions over the years going in a different route. I've noticed this recently w/some of my friends, that decisions, even small ones, over the years now come back to bite them b/c they didn't have a long term view. Now in early 30's they are constrained by choices throughout their 20's. Unfortunately, most people aren't equipped to make good decisions earlier, which hurts them later. So making such a change in lifestyle becomes harder. So while it can be done, it's going to take some hard decisions. Just remember, children are a great reward, and a great sacrifice." }, { "docid": "434788", "title": "", "text": "Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing ." }, { "docid": "229756", "title": "", "text": "Slide 1 Blogspot: NORTON SCIENTIFIC SCAM-Detection and Prevention of Clinical Research Fraud - FC2 Knowhow deanciana Slide 2 NORTON SCIENTIFIC SCAM-Detection and Prevention of Clinical Research Fraud and Misconduct A Norton saeo.net — Current Class Dates (subject to change): Scheduled as Needed based on Student Demand. Email us a​t​o​n​l​i​n​e​t​r​a​i​n​@​n​o​r​t​o​n​a​u​d​i​t​s​.​c​o​m if you are interested in this course. Description - This is an advanced-level class that takes an in-depth examination of severe noncompliance, clinical data fabrication and falsification, scientific misconduct and fraud cases. The course focus is on developing skills for preventing fraud and misconduct and preparing clinical research professionals to better handle severe noncompliance. Slide 3 Source: saeo.net #NORTON SCIENTIFIC SCAM-Detection and Prevention of Clinical Research Fraud and Misconduct A Norton #norton scientific reblog clintonmccage: NORTON SCIENTIFIC SCAM-Detection and Prevention of Clinical Research Fraud and Misconduct A Norton Current Class Dates (subject to change): Scheduled as Needed based on Student Demand. Email us a​t​o​n​l​i​n​e​t​r​a​i​n​@​n​o​r​t​o​n​a​u​d​i​t​s​.​c​o​m if you are interested in this course. Slide 4 Description - This is an advanced-level class that takes an in-depth examination of severe noncompliance,clinical data fabrication and falsification, scientific misconduct and fraud cases. The course focus is on developing skills for preventing fraud and misconduct and preparing clinical research professionals to better handle severe noncompliance. Source: saeo.net #NORTON SCIENTIFIC SCAM-Detection and Prevention of Clinical Research Fraud and Misconduct A Norton #norton scientific reblog eddiemccrane: Slide 5 NORTON SCIENTIFIC SCAM-Detection and Prevention of Clinical Research Fraud and Misconduct A Norton Current Class Dates (subject to change): Scheduled as Needed based on Student Demand. Email us a​t​o​n​l​i​n​e​t​r​a​i​n​@​n​o​r​t​o​n​a​u​d​i​t​s​.​c​o​m if you are interested in this course. Description - This is an advanced-level class that takes an in-depth examination of severe noncompliance, clinical data fabrication and falsification, scientific misconduct and fraud cases. The course focus is on developing skills for preventing fraud and misconduct and preparing clinical research professionals to better handle severe noncompliance. Slide 6 Source: saeo.net #NORTON SCIENTIFIC SCAM-Detection and Prevention of Clinical Research Fraud and Misconduct A Norton #norton scientific 1 note reblog pittturvey: Norton Scientific : Blogspot | Facebook Fraud Prevention | NORTON SCIENTIFIC SCAM-Detection and Prevention of Clinical Research Fraud and Misconduct A Norton : Social-bookmarking.net Current Class Dates (subject to change): Scheduled as Needed based on Student Demand. Email us a​t​o​n​l​i​n​e​t​r​a​i​n​@​n​o​r​t​o​n​a​u​d​i​t​s​.​c​o​m if you are interested in this course. Slide 7 Description - This is an advanced-level class that takes an in-depth examination of severe noncompliance,clinical data fabrication and falsification, scientific misconduct and fraud cases. The course focus is on developing skills for preventing fraud and misconduct and preparing clinical research professionals to better handle severe noncompliance. Slide 8 Class Agenda/Modules - Instructors Make a Difference Defining Clinical Research Fraud and Misconduct Evaluation of Case History R.E.S.E.A.R.C.H. TM Skills Program Advanced Auditing and Monitoring Skills for Prevention Case Development" }, { "docid": "307411", "title": "", "text": "The credit scale is deceptive, it goes: AAA, AA, A, BBB, BBB-, BB+, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D. In reality it should be A,B,C,D,E, F, G,H, I, etc. The current scale does not reflect with clarity the ranking of risks and ratings. AA is much worse than AAA, but the uncertainty involved can be scary. Check out these corporate and sovereign debt credit ratings." }, { "docid": "523393", "title": "", "text": "\"I did once read a book titled \"\"How I made a million dollars on the stock market\"\". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck. (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, \"\"smart\"\" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal). Clearly not a matter of \"\"playing your cards right\"\", but of having an enormous amount of luck.\"" }, { "docid": "20258", "title": "", "text": "\"Thanks for the great response. The example with calculus is perfect! Group A is some students who will never ever get it, no matter how much you teach and train them. As you know, group B is some students who excel in calculus just by reading the book with no need for a professor to explain or teach them. They probably exceed in understanding beyond the course objectives. Group C, most, will be in the middle: struggle and with efforts of the professor (if the class is not more than 10-15 students) and their own efforts, they will eventually understand... some will get C, some will get B and few will get A. Which group will succeed with their career if it requires calculus? &gt; The messed up part is that professors are never formally taught to teach. True. I was an adjunct professor while studying for my master's. In the end of the semester, students had to evaluate their professors. I got the 2nd best results, after another part-time adjunct professor, and way above all tenured professors. Are you surprised? By the way, I was teaching introductory classes and I was working for the department I was teaching for as a research intern. As for professors who don't know how to teach, this was not an issue in the past and was not needed in the past (i.e. it's because of past traditions). In the past, the role of the professor was not so much to teach, in the sense and the way teachers teach today in elementary school: attend and dance around every student's special needs and go in a slow pace to accommodate make sure nobody is left behind. The role of the professor in the past, being a real expert and full of knowledge far and beyond what is required, was to plan and sequence what has to be taught, in a pace that will meet the full agenda of the class. No concern is given for students who can't keep the pace. Also, the role was to challenge the students, test then and answer any question they may have. This includes debates over any topic related to the class material. &gt; I think the vast majority of work related skills that people develop are learned on the job Absolutely true!!!! Or let's put it this way: **the best school was, is and will be \"\"a Master and an Apprentice\"\".** Which is somewhat still done in Germany, and is the only way Medical Students learn... because, no choice: the life of others is in their hands. By the way, **Masters have zero patience** for apprentices who don't show a promise. Masters also have little talent in teaching but **Masters have long term 1000% patience** to show, again and again, correct again and again, demand, explain and challenge their apprentices. ... to the point the Masters actually don't do much work, and, instead, just teach, in their own special way.\"" }, { "docid": "207253", "title": "", "text": "According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised. This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place. Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders. However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.)" }, { "docid": "66476", "title": "", "text": "It's pretty simple. - Increase banks ability to lend for... a. mortgages b. Small businesses Banks have tremendous quantities of cash trapped on their balance sheets that should be deployed into the economy where it generates growth, jobs, and strengthens the middle class. - improve infrastructure Our infrastructure is in disrepair and improving it will generate growth and something to show for the massive debt load we've accumulated for our nation. - repatriation holiday This capital needs to be working in our economy. - Increase taxes The massive flood of liquidity we've seen from the FED, what we should be seeing released from banks, and then what we should see from corporations repatriating cash will need to move through the economy and and going to work. Then, taxed; reducing deficits and eventually liquidity. - raise interest rates In that order. Capital moves through the market at different rates and paces. I'm usually for lower taxes, but it isn't always the solution. Lower taxes, reduced regulation, and low interest rates are all different ways of increasing liquidity, but should be increased/reduced at different parts of the economic cycle. Dimon is right about Washington. This is bullshit." }, { "docid": "372615", "title": "", "text": "If there was no question of improvements to the property, the problem would be simple. Each person invests whatever amount. Calculate the percentage of each person's investment out of the entire investment, and that's what share each one owns. Like: A puts in $10,000 for the deposit and pays $5,000 toward the mortgage over the next however many years. B puts in $5,000 toward the deposit but pays $7,000 of the mortgage. C puts in $15,000 but pays only $1,000 of the mortgage payments. So total investments: A - $15,000, B - $12,000, C - $16,000. Total - $43,000. So A's share of the house is 15,000/43,000 = 34.9%. Etc. If you then sell it you pay off any outstanding debt, and then everybody gets their share of what's left. But once you start making improvements, there is no simple formula. Suppose you put down new flooring in the dining room. You pay $500 for materials and put in 20 hours of labor. Presumably you have now added something more than $500 to your share, but how much more? How much are the hours worth? What if someone damages the house -- puts a hole in the all or something -- and then fixes it. Does the time and effort they put into fixing it add to their investment, or did that just cancel out the damage they did? What if one person does a lot to keep the house in generally good condition in small snippets of time, like cleaning furnace filters and polishing the floors, while another does nothing and lets their share get run down and dirty? It gets very complicated. Theoretically you could come up with a rate at which you value your work -- like say every hour spent maintaining the house is worth $10 or $20 or whatever. But who's going to keep track of it over the course of potentially many years? And what if one person does a small number of big, easily quantifiable jobs, while another does many small, hard-to-count jobs? Like if A mops the floor every week for 2 years, is that worth more or less than B installing 3 ceiling fans, a door, and 2 windows? You could go around and around on this sort of thing." }, { "docid": "550992", "title": "", "text": "\"I can address what it means to \"\"pick off\"\" all those trades... As quantycuenta & littleadv have said, it is absolutely true that professionals \"\"prey\"\" on less-sophisticated market participants. They aren't in the market for charity's sake. If you're not familiar with the definition of the word \"\"arbitrage\"\", look it up. One possible strategy that can be employed with HFT machinery in order to arbitrage successfully in the stock market is to 'intercept' orders that are placed on various exchanges. In order to do this, an HFT organization watches all the transactions at once to find opportunities to buy low and sell high. A good explanation of it is described here in this NY Times article; I'll paraphrase what that article lays out. Stocks are traded through multiple exchanges The first key point to understand is that stocks listed on one exchange (i.e. the NYSE) can be sold on multiple exchanges. That's where the actual \"\"I would like to sell 100 shares of Ford stock\"\" is matched with \"\"I would like to buy 100 shares of Ford stock.\"\" There are multiple clearinghouses on the various exchanges. Your order gets presented to one exchange at a Time An ideal market maker would like to look at the order books for a given stock, say Ford, and see that in exchange A there's a sell order for 100 shares of F at $15.85, and in exchange B there's a buy order for 100 shares of F at $15.90. Arbitrage Market maker buys from A, sells in B, and pockets $0.05 * 100... $5. It's not much, but it was relatively risk free. Also, scale this up to the scale of the US' multiple stock exchanges, and there are lots of opportunities to make $5 every second. Computers are (of course) faster than people To tie it in completely with your question about 'picking off trades', HFT rigs can be set up and programmed to go faster than an average retail investor's order. Let's say you execute the trade to buy 100 shares @ $15.85 as a retail investor. The HFT rigs see your order starting to make the rounds of the different exchanges that your brokerage works through, and go out in front in a matter of milliseconds, finding the orders that are less than $15.85 and less than or equal to 100 shares. They execute a transaction, buy them up, sell to you, and pocket the difference. You have been \"\"picked off\"\". It's admittedly not the only way to use HFT equipment to make money, but it's definitely one way to do it.\"" }, { "docid": "500486", "title": "", "text": "First, it's not always the case that ETFs have lower expenses than the equivalent mutual funds. For example, in the Vanguard family of funds the expense ratio for the ETF version is the same as it is for the Admiral share class in the mutual fund version. With that in mind, the main advantages of a mutual fund over an equivalent ETF are: From a long-term investor's point of view, the main disadvantage of mutual funds relative to ETFs is the minimum account sizes. Especially if the fund has multiple share classes (i.e., where better classes get lower expense ratios), you might have to have quite a lot of money invested in the fund in order to get the same expense ratio as the ETF. There are some other differences that matter to more active investors (e.g., intraday trading, options, etc.), but for a passive investor the ones above are the major ones. Apart from those mutual funds and ETFs are pretty similar. Personally, I prefer mutual funds because I'm at a point where the fund minimums aren't really an issue, and I don't want to deal with the more fiddly aspects of ETFs. For investors just starting out the lower minimum investment for an ETF is a big win, as long as you can get commission-free trades (which is what I've assumed above.)" }, { "docid": "528516", "title": "", "text": "Some companies like Royal Dutch Shell have multiple share classes to suit the tax regimes in Holland and the UK the A shares have dutch withholding tax applied and the B shares dont. Also some split capital investment trusts have multiple share classes http://www.trustnet.com/Education/Split.aspx?ms=1" }, { "docid": "292893", "title": "", "text": "isn't it still a dilution of existing share holder stock value ? Whether this is dilution or benefit, only time will tell. The Existing value of Facebook is P, the anticipated value after Watsapp is P+Q ... it may go up or go down depending on whether it turns out to be the right decision. Plus if Facebook hadn't bought Watsapp and someone else may have bought and Facebook itself would have got diluted, just like Google Shadowed Microsoft and Facebook shadowed Google ... There are regulations in place to ensure that there is no diversion of funds and shady deals where only the management profits and others are at loss. Edit to littleadv's comments: If a company A is owned by 10 people for $ 10 with total value $100, each has 10% of the share in the said company. Now if a Company B is acquired again 10 ea with total value 100. In percentage terms everyone now owns 5% of the new combined company C. He still owns $10 worth. Just after this acquisition or some time later ..." }, { "docid": "353911", "title": "", "text": "It does make sense to combine debts and pay off the worst (highest interest rate). However, if you can't get any loan, you should focus on the worst debt and pay that off. Then take the same amount of money you were paying to the next worse debt, and so on until you're clean. Let's look at an example. Debt A is at 5%, Debt B is at 10% and Debt C is at 15%. You are paying AB and C. On a monthly basis, you save 100€ to pay off C. Once C is payed off, you keep on saving 100€ and add whatever you were paying to Debt C to those savings. This way, you can pay off Debt B at an increased rate. When B is cleared, you save 100€ + whatever you were paying to Debt B and Debt C to clear Debt A. That's the theory." }, { "docid": "113800", "title": "", "text": "\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"" }, { "docid": "367007", "title": "", "text": "There are lots of reasons for the differences in price. Can you go to (a) bank, (b) forex bureau and (c) central bank and post back both bid and offer prices at a given time so we can consider the spread? What you've said above for (a) and (b) are presumably USDGHS offer prices, because they are higher than the (c) central bank price. If a bank or bureau bid price was higher than the central bank offer price then you could buy GHS from the central bank and then sell them to a bureau for a higher price, an almost no risk arbitrage, other than the armoured car to deliver the funds from central bank to bureau. What you've posted is: (a) a bank will sell you 1 USD for 3.4 GHS (b) a bureau will sell you 1 USD for 3.7 GHS (c) we can see the bid/offer for central bank is 3.1949/3.1975 which means the central bank, if you have an account, will sell you 1 USD for 3.1975 GHS. You clearly want to buy USD from the central bank, then the bank, then the bureau. Anyway, the reason for these differences is all to do with liquidity conditions in the local areas, the customer types, and the frequency of orders versus inventory... Think about it. The central bank has the most frequency of orders and the biggest customers so it offers the lower price, then the bank, and then the bureau. I think the bureau is the worst price there... You have to explain further :)" }, { "docid": "152151", "title": "", "text": "A big issue for historical data in banking is that they don't/can't reside within a single system. Archives of typical bank will include dozen(s) of different archives made by different companies on different, incompatible systems. For example, see http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/big-bank-theory-chart-large.jpg as an illustration of bank mergers and acquisitions, and AFAIK that doesn't include many smaller deals. For any given account, it's 10-year history might be on some different system. Often, when integrating such systems, a compromise is made - if bank A acquires bank B that has earlier acquired bank C, then if the acquisition of C was a few years ago, then you can skip integrating the archives of C in your online systems, keep them separate, and use them only when/if needed (and minimize that need by hefty fees). Since the price list and services are supposed to be equal for everyone, then no matter how your accounts originated, if 10% of archives are an expensive enough problem to integrate, then it makes financial sense to restrict access to 100% of archives older than some arbitrary threshold." }, { "docid": "383930", "title": "", "text": "Option contracts typically each represent 100 shares. So the 1 call contract you sold to open (wrote) grants the buyer of that option the right to purchase your 100 shares for $80.00 per share any time before the option expiration date. You were paid a gross amount of $100 (100 shares times $1.00 premium per share) for taking on the obligation to deliver should the option holder choose to exercise. You received credit in your account of $89.22, which ought to be the $100 less any trading commission (~$10?) and miscellaneous fees (regulatory, exchange, etc.) per contract. You did capture premium. However, your covered call write represents an open short position that, until either (a) the option expires worthless, or (b) is exercised, or (c) is bought back to close the position, will continue to show on your account as a liability. Until the open position is somehow closed, the value of both the short option contract and long stock will continue to fluctuate. This is normal." }, { "docid": "205208", "title": "", "text": "\"Following comments to your question here, you posted a separate question about why SPY, SPX, and the options contract don't move perfectly together. That's here Why don't SPY, SPX, and the e-mini s&p 500 track perfectly with each other? I provided an answer to that question and will build on it to answer what I think you're asking on this question. Specifically, I explained what it means that these are \"\"all based on the S&P.\"\" Each is a different entity, and different market forces keep them aligned. I think talking about \"\"technicals\"\" on options contracts is going to be too confusing since they are really a very different beast based on forward pricing models, so, for this question, I'll focus on only SPY and SPX. As in my other answer, it's only through specific market forces (the creation / redemption mechanism that I described in my other answer), that they track at all. There's nothing automatic about this and it has nothing to do with some issuer of SPY actually holding stock in the companies that comprise the SPX index. (That's not to say that the company does or doesn't hold, just that this doesn't drive the prices.) What ever technical signals you're tracking, will reflect all of the market forces at play. For SPX (the index), that means some aggregate behavior of the component companies, computed in a \"\"mathematically pure\"\" way. For SPY (the ETF), that means (a) the behavior of SPX and (b) the behavior of the ETF as it trades on the market, and (c) the action of the authorized participants. These are simply different things. Which one is \"\"right\"\"? That depends on what you want to do. In theory you might be able to do some analysis of technical signals on SPY and SPX and, for example, use that to make money on the way that they fail to track each other. If you figure out how to do that, though, don't post it here. Send it to me directly. :)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "432424", "title": "", "text": "William %R is a momentum indicator used for measuring overbought and oversold levels, it is not used to predict the price of a stock. In fact, William %R, like all momentum indicators, is a lagging indicator - meaning the indicator level changes as the price of the stock changes. It ranges from 0 to -100. Usually when a reading is less than -80 the stock can be considered to be oversold, and when the reading is above -20 the stock can be considered overbought. When viewed together with the price chart, this can help provide a trader with entry and exit points into and out of a trade." } ]

[ { "docid": "389035", "title": "", "text": "Sometimes, but it was more common for the 'presentation' leg of the project to use Excel as the last step before passing the data on to the next team or pushing things into a powerpoint. For new projects, those were much more likely to be R end to end and yes, I often used an organization like you mention, extract and transform -&gt; Fit Model and export predictions -&gt; produce visuals and explanatory data. I did have a few examples where I used R to build on top of excel models, e.g. passing data that was already being calculated into a regression or producing a plot that excel couldn't easily do. In my case we had 10+ people who were good with excel and only 1 or 2 being proficient with R. If the majority of people were strong R users, I'm sure it would have had more predominance in our work." }, { "docid": "563169", "title": "", "text": "If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia." }, { "docid": "517637", "title": "", "text": "\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"" }, { "docid": "194363", "title": "", "text": "You can't get there from here. This isn't the right data. Consider the following five-year history: 2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%. That would give a 13% average annual return. Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%. That would give a 4% average annual return. Notice anything about those numbers? Two of them are in both series. This isn't an accident. The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier. The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough. You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well. Because there will be bear markets. Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want. Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers: But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened. The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results. This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year. The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings. With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation. The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation. So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks. It's better to live off the interest if you can. You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do. From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take. A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better. Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation. Maybe you could squeak through with ten. But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble." }, { "docid": "501032", "title": "", "text": "From Wikipedia - To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor, usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be 1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee." }, { "docid": "489220", "title": "", "text": "On closer look, it appears that Google Finance relies on the last released 10-k statement (filing date 10/30/2013), but outstanding shares as of last 10-Q statement. Using these forms, you get ($37,037M / 5.989B ) = $6.18 EPS. I think this is good to note, as you can manually calculate a more up to date EPS value than what the majority of investors out there are relying on." }, { "docid": "329466", "title": "", "text": "If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here." }, { "docid": "138830", "title": "", "text": "\"Stock price is set to the price with the highest transaction volume at any given time. The stock price you cited was only valid in the last transaction on a specific stock exchange. As such it is more of an \"\"historic\"\" value. Next trade will be done with the next biggest volume. Depending on the incoming bids and asks this could be higher or lower, but you can assume it will not be too far off if there is no crash underway. Simple example stock exchange:\"" }, { "docid": "470758", "title": "", "text": "\"One approach is to invest in \"\"allocation\"\" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the \"\"R-squared\"\" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price. The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, \"\"lifecycle,\"\" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't \"\"see\"\" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance \"\"more aggressively\"\" then look at value averaging (search for \"\"value averaging\"\" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that.\"" }, { "docid": "245867", "title": "", "text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees." }, { "docid": "495717", "title": "", "text": "\"Sorry in advance, but this will be long. Also, it sounds like your friend is a tool. I hope this \"\"friend\"\" is not also your financial advisor... they would be encouraging you to make a very poor investment decision. They also don't know how to do financial math. For what it's worth, I am not wrong. I have correctly answered a set of changing questions as you have asked them... Your friend is answering based on a third, completely different investment model, which you proposed in the edit to your last post. If that's what you meant all along, then you should have been more clear in the questions you were asking. Please let me layout the following: How the previous questions//investment proposals were built How to analyze this current proposal What your other option is Why the other option is best in a 'real world' market The First Question My understanding of the initial proposal was to take out a $10,000 loan, invest the proceeds, and expect to not have any money of your own tied up in this. Because that OP did not specify that this is an interest-only loan (you still haven't in any of your questions), the bank will require you to make payments back to them each month that include principal and interest. Your \"\"friend\"\" is talking about the total interest paid being the only cost of a loan. While that is (almost) true, regardless of what your friend says, significantly more cash is involved in making sure that all the payments are made on time---unless you set up an interest-only loan. But with the set up laid out in this post, and with the assumptions I specified there, the principal payments must be included because the borrower has to pay back the bank and isn't not tying up any of their own money. In that case, my initial analysis is correct--your breakeven is in the low teens for an annual required return. The Second Proposal Your second proposal... before any edits... refined things a little bit, to try to capture the any possible returns by not selling something. As I indicated there, (with what was an exaggerating assumption), the lack of clarity makes for an outlandish required return. The Second Proposal...with edits, or the one proposed above I will get to the one proposed above in a second, but first let me highlight a few problems with your friend's analysis. Simple interest: the only place (in the US at least) that will lend with simple interest is student loans. Any loan that you actually take out will be compound interest. Not an interest only loan: your \"\"friend\"\" is not calculating interest correctly. Since this isn't an interest-only loan, the principal balance will reduce every time you make a payment, by ~$320-$340 each month. This substantially reduces the total interest paid, to $272.79 over the total 24 months. \"\"Returns\"\": I don't know what country, or what business your friend works in, but \"\"returns\"\" are a very ambiguous concept. Investopedia defines returns as gains or losses. (I wish I could inhabit the lala land that your friend lives in when returns are always positive). TheFreeDictionary.com defines a return for finance as \"\"The change in the value of a portfolio over an evaluation period, including any distributions made from the portfolio during that period.\"\" When you have not made it clear that any other money is being used in this investment plan (as was the case in scheme #1 and scheme #2a,) the loan still has to be paid. So, clearly the principal must be included in the return calculations. How to evaluate this proposed investment scheme Key dimensions: Loan ($8,000 ... 24 months ... 0.27% monthly rate... monthly compounding... no loan origination fees) Monthly payment (PMT in Excel yields $344.70). Investment capital (starting = $8,000) Monthly Return (Investment yields... we hope it's positive!) Your monthly contribution from your salary Taxes = 10%. Transaction Fees = $20 Go and lookup how to build an amortization table for a loan in Excel. Your life will be infinitely better for it. Now, you get this loan set up and invested into something... (it costs $20 to buy the assets). So you've got $7980 chugging away earning interest. I calculate that your break even, with you paying in $344.70 of your own money each month is 1.81% annually, or 3.42% over the 24 month life of this scheme. That is using monthly compound interest for the payments, because that's what the real world would use, and using monthly compounding of the investments' returns. Your total interest expense would be $272.79. This seems feasible. But let's talk about what your other option is, given that you're ready to spend $344.70 each month on an investment. Your other option I understand the appeal of getting $8,000... right away... to invest in something. But the risk behind this is that if the market goes down (and markets do) you're stuck paying a fixed amount for your loan that is now worth less money. Your other option is to take your $344.70, and invest it step-by-step. (You would want to skip a month or two buying assets in the market, so that you can lessen transaction costs). This has two advantages: (1) you save yourself $272 in interest. (2) When the market goes down, you still win. With this strategy, you still win when the market goes down because of what is commonly called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". When the market is up, your investments are also up. When the market goes down, your previous investments decrease in value but you can invest new money at the lower rates. Why the step-by-step, invest your own money strategy is better At low rates (when you're looking for your break-even), the step-by-step model outperforms the loan. At higher rates of return (~4% + per year), you get the benefit of having the borrowed money earning more gains. In fact, for every continuous (meaning set... not changing month-to-month) interest rate that you can dream up that is greater than about 4% per year, the borrowed money earns more. At 10% per year, the borrowed money will earn about $500 more over the 2 years than your step by step investment would. BUT I recognize that you might feel like the market will always go up. That's what everyone thinks. And that's alright. But have one really bad month, or a couple of just-not-great-months, and your fixed 'loan' portfolio will underperform. Have a few really bad months, and your portfolio could be substantially reduced in value... but you would still be paying the same amount for it each month. And if that happened (say your assets declined -3% in 3 of the 24 months...) You'd be losing money relative to the step-by-step portfolio.\"" }, { "docid": "542795", "title": "", "text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!" }, { "docid": "5572", "title": "", "text": "\"It's not necessarily bad but it can cause the stock price to become a lot more volatile. Depends on which side of the bet you're on ;) Suppose a hedge fund manager thinks a company is poorly run. He may buy a ton of shares so that he can get rid of the current CEO and replace it with his/her own. For the hedge fund and others long on the stock, this is good. Those who are trading options or using some short-term strategies could get screwed because of the sudden volatility. My next point is related to the above. What is the intrinsic value of a stock? The current price of a stock is the equilibrium of all investor's perception of the stock's value. Professionals make up a value for a stock using models such as DCF. Once they do so they trade based on what they believe the value of the stock is. You might calculate a stock is worth 70 and I believe it's 80 so the stock price is going to fluctuate a bit but it should keep within that range (assuming we're the only investors). Then comes a hedge fund manager, say Carl Icahn, and discloses a stake in our stock. \"\"Wow, the stock must be really valuable!\"\" Everyone starts buying this stock so up it goes to 90, simply because the guy who seems to know what he's doing bought it. The point here is that now it's not trading based on intrinsic value, now it's purely psychological. Ie. it's now a momentum stock, which you have no idea when it'll crash. Look at Tesla, Netflix, or just google momentum stocks. All the big crashes in stock prices happen when these big funds unload their stocks. A surge in supply will cut the price. The problem is you can't predict when some fund manager will decide to sell some stake of his. Tying everything together is liquidity. The more liquid a stock is, the easier it is to obtain and the less volatile it is. The more people playing the game, with not too big shares of stock, the faster the price will converge to some equilibrium and with less volatility. Institutional investors take away liquidity.\"" }, { "docid": "456389", "title": "", "text": "\"Scenario 1: Assume that you plan to keep the parking space for the rest of your life and collect the income from the rental. You say these spaces rent for $250 per month and there are fees of $1400 per year. Are there any other costs? Like would you be responsible for the cost of repaving at some point? But assuming that's covered in the $1400, the net profit is 250 x 12 - 1400 = $1600 per year. So now the question becomes, what other things could you invest your money in, and what sort of returns do those give? If, say, you have investments in the stock market that are generating a 10% annual return and you expect that rate of return to continue indefinitely, than if you pay a price that gives you a return of less than 10%, i.e. if you pay more than $16,000, then you would be better off to put the money in the stock market. That is, you should calculate the fair price \"\"backwards\"\": What return on investment is acceptable, and then what price would I have to pay to get that ROI? Oh, you should also consider what the \"\"occupancy rate\"\" on such parking spaces is. Is there enough demand that you can realistically expect to have it rented out 100% of the time? When one renter leaves, how long does it take to find another? And do you have any information on how often renters fail to pay the rent? I own a house that I rent out and I had two tenants in a row who failed to pay the rent, and the legal process to get them evicted takes months. I don't know what it takes to \"\"evict\"\" someone from a parking space. Scenario 2: You expect to collect rent on this space for some period of time, and then someday sell it. In that case, there's an additional piece of information you need: How much can you expect to get for this property when you sell it? This is almost surely highly speculative. But you could certainly look at past pricing trends. If you see that the value of a parking space in your area has been going up by, whatever, say 4% per year for the past 20 years, it's reasonable to plan on the assumption that this trend will continue. If it's been up and down and all over the place, you could be taking a real gamble. If you pay $30,000 for it today and when the time comes to sell the best you can get is $15,000, that's not so good. But if there is some reasonable consistent average rate of growth in value, you can add this to the expected rents. Like if you can expect it to grow in value by $1000 per year, then the return on your investment is the $1600 in rent plus $1000 in capital growth equals $2600. Then again do an ROI calculation based on potential returns from other investments.\"" }, { "docid": "281495", "title": "", "text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete." }, { "docid": "287325", "title": "", "text": "\"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale. This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called \"\"backdating\"\", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything.\"" }, { "docid": "240894", "title": "", "text": "\"Gold may have some \"\"intrinsic value\"\" but it cannot be accurately determined by investors by any known valuation techniques. In fact, if you were to apply the dividend discount model of John Burr Williams - a variation of which is the basis of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and the basis of most valuation techniques - gold would have zero intrinsic value because it produces no cash flow. Legendary focus investor Warren Buffett argues that investing in gold is pure speculation because of the reason mentioned above. As others have mentioned, gold prices are affected by supply and demand, but the bigger influence on the price of gold is how the economy is. Gold is seen as a store of value because, according to some, it does not \"\"lose value\"\" unlike paper currency during inflation. In inflationary times, demand increases so gold prices do go up, which is why gold behaves similar to a commodity but has far less uses. It is difficult to argue whether or not gold gains or loses value because we can't determine the intrinsic value of gold, and anyone who attempts to justify any given price is pulling blinders over your eyes. It is indisputable that, over history, gold represents wealth and that in the past century and the last decade, gold prices rise in inflationary conditions as people dump dollars for gold, and it has fallen when the purchasing power of currency increases. Many investors have talked about a \"\"gold bubble\"\" by arguing that gold prices are inflated because of inflation and the Fed's money policy and that once interest rates rise, the money supply will contract and gold will fall, but again, nobody can say with any reasonable accuracy what the fair value of gold at any given point is. This article on seeking alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/112794-the-intrinsic-value-of-gold gives a quick overview, but it is also vague because gold can't be accurately priced. I wouldn't say that gold has zero intrinsic value because gold is not a business so traditional models are inappropriate, but I would say that gold *certainly * doesn't have a value of $1,500 and it's propped so high only because of investor expectation. In conclusion, I do not believe you can accurately state whether gold is undervalued or overvalued - you must make judgments based on what you think about the future of the market and of monetary policy, but there are too many variables to be accurate consistently.\"" }, { "docid": "546150", "title": "", "text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!" }, { "docid": "27416", "title": "", "text": "\"For the first and last questions, I can do this multiple ways. For the middle question, I'll just make up values. If you want different ones, you will have to redo the math. I am going to assume that you participate in the merger exchange, swapping your share for their offer. If you own one share, it depends how they handle fractional shares. Your original one share of ABC can be worth either one share of XYZ or 1.05 shares of XYZ. If you get one share, you typically get an additional $.80 cash to make up for the fractional share. You might ask why you don't just get $20 cash and one share of XYZ. Consider the case where you own twenty shares of ABC. Then you'd own twenty-one shares of XYZ and $384. No need for fractional shares. Beyond all this though, the share value of XYZ is not set autocratically. The shares might be worth $16, $40, or $2 after the merger. If both stocks are perfectly valued and the market is aware of that value, then it will depend partially on the number of shares of each. For example, if we assume there are 10,000 shares of ABC and 50,000 shares of XYZ (including the shares paid for ABC), then their initial market values are $320,000 for ABC and $800,000 for XYZ. XYZ is paying $360,000, so its value drops to $440,000. But it is gaining ABC, which is worth $320,000. Net value now is $760,000 or $15.20 per share. This has assumed that the shares transferred from XYZ to the shareholders of ABC were already included in the market value. This may mean that the stock price was previously $20 or so with almost 40,000 shares in circulation. Then they issued new shares, diluting the value down to $16. We could start at 50,000 shares at $16 and end up with 60,000 to 60,050 shares at $13.332 to $13.333 per share. Then XYZ is really only paying $326,658.31 for ABC. That's a premium of only $6,658.31 for ABC and gives a final stock value of $13.222 per share. The problem though is that in reality, there is no equivalent of perfect value. So I say again that the market value might be $15.20 (the theoretic answer that best fits the question given the example quantities of shares), $13, $20, or something else. It will depend on how the market perceives the deal. Is the combined company worth more or less than the sum of its parts? And beyond this, you will have $19.20 to $20 in cash in addition to your XYZ share (or 1.05 shares). Assuming 1.05 shares, that would be $15.96 plus the $19.20--that's $35.16 total in theory or anything from $19.20 up in practice. With the givens, the only thing of which you can be sure is the $19.20 cash. The value of the stock is up in the air. If XYZ is only privately traded, this is still true. The stock is worth the price that someone will pay for it. The \"\"someone\"\" is just more limited with privately traded stocks.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "513258", "title": "", "text": "Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example." } ]

[ { "docid": "240215", "title": "", "text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"" }, { "docid": "71924", "title": "", "text": "\"A big part of the answer depends on how \"\"beaten down\"\" the stock is, how long it will take to recover from the drop, and your taste for risk. If you honestly believe the drop is a temporary aberration then averaging down can be a good strategy to lower your dollar-cost average in the stock. But this is a huge risk if you're wrong, because now you're going to magnify your losses by piling on more stock that isn't going anywhere to the shares you already own at a higher cost. As @Mindwin pointed out correctly, the problem for most investors following an \"\"average down\"\" strategy is that it makes them much less likely to cut their losses when the stock doesn't recover. They basically become \"\"married\"\" to the stock because they've actualized their belief the stock will bounce back when maybe it never will or worse, drops even more.\"" }, { "docid": "105444", "title": "", "text": "Not sure how Technology Mgmt differs from IS but I would limit your options to be Finance, Accounting, TM/IS. Technology is only going up and people are always going to have problems with it so no problems. Every larger company has an IT department that handles issues from looking for new technology or an IT Service Desk where you answer calls from someone having an issue with their computer. From what I hear from colleagues is experience is huge here. From an IT perspective I think this major would have the highest probability of landing a job. Accounting and Finance is different. If you go down one of those paths, to be the most successful you'll have to take supplement courses to get either a CPA or CFA. Also working in the big accounting firms from what I've seen is super stressful based on when their clients close their books each quarter but is very rewarding. To move up in Accounting you'd want to get the CPA. If you don't have it, you'll plateau at some point and won't get any higher without it really. I chose finance, but did not want to be a financial advisor. I did not like the idea of retaining clients by refers or cold calling. Essentially if you remember the scene on Wolf of Wall Street where Leo gets the little job and makes a huge sale off a cold call, that's what it is like when you first start out. You are pressured to sell insurance and stocks to your friends and family in hope that they refer you to their friends and family...it works for some people and it doesn't for others. Down this path you'd also possibly take the CFA tests and for sure series 6, 66, 7. Currently I'm not doing anything finance related but it is a great background for your personal finances and what not. I would say you want to choose soon though so you can work on getting internships. Internships are huge as it will be a professional reference and if you do well in the position that company could hire you on once you graduate. Hope this helped. TLDR: Get an internship and experience the job." }, { "docid": "160169", "title": "", "text": "Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself. Of course, you could be wrong in your estimate (too low, and you now have a position that might not become profitable; too high, and you never get in and instead just watch the stock gain in value), but that is not unique to options - if you're bad at estimating value (which is not to be confused with predicting price movement) you're doomed just about whatever you do." }, { "docid": "23446", "title": "", "text": "Ex-Dividend Price Behavior of Common Stocks would be a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and University of Minnesota if you want a source for some data. Abstract This study examines common stock prices around ex-dividend dates. Such price data usually contain a mixture of observations - some with and some without arbitrageurs and/or dividend capturers active. Our theory predicts such mixing will result in a nonlinear relation between percentage price drop and dividend yield - not the commonly assumed linear relation. This prediction and another important prediction of theory are supported empirically. In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop have been an excellent (average) rule of thumb." }, { "docid": "133204", "title": "", "text": "\"Probably the biggest driver of the increased volumes that day was a change in sentiment towards the healthcare sector as a whole that caused many healthcare companies to experience higher volumes ( https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2017-07-11/asset-acquisitions-accelerate-in-healthcare-sector-boosting-potential-revenue-growth ). Following any spike, not just sentiment related spikes, the market tends to bounce back to about where it had been previously as analysts at the investment banks start to see the stock(s) as being overbought or oversold. This is because the effect of a spike on underlying ratios such as the Sharpe ratio or the PE ratio makes the stock look less attractive to buyers and more attractive to sellers, including short sellers. Note, however, that the price is broadly still a little higher than it was before the spike as a result of this change in sentiment. Looking at the price trends on Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/CDNA:US) the price had been steadily falling for the year prior to the spike but was levelling out at just over $1 in the few months immediately prior to the spike. The increased interest in the sector and the stock likely added to a general change in the direction of the price trend and caused traders (as opposed to investors) to believe that there was a change in the price trend. This will have lead to them trading the stock more heavily intraday exacerbating the spike. Note that there traders will include HFT bots as well as human traders. You question the legality of this volume increase but the simple answer is that we may never know if it was the target of traders manipulating the price or a case of insider trading. What we can see is that (taking \"\"animal spirits\"\" into account) without any evidence of illegality there are plenty of potential reasons why the spike may have occurred. Spikes are common where traders perceive a change in a trend as they rush to cash in on the change before other traders can and then sell out quickly when they realise that the price is fundamentally out of sync with the firm's underlying position. You yourself say that you have been watching the stock for some time and, by that fact alone, it is likely that others are for the same reasons that you are. Otherwise you wouldn't be looking at it. Where people are looking at a stock expecting it to take off or drop you expect volatility and volatility means spikes!\"" }, { "docid": "240591", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on what you're talking about. If this is for your retirement accounts, like IRAs, then ABSOLUTELY NOT! In your retirement accounts you should be broadly diversified - not just between stocks, but also other markets like bonds. Target retirement funds and solid conservative or moderate allocation funds are the best 'quick-and-dirty' recommendation for those accounts. Since it's for the long haul, you want to be managing risk, not chasing returns. Returns will happen over the 40 or so years they have to grow. Now, if you're talking about a taxable stock account, and you've gotten past PF questions like \"\"am I saving enough for retirement\"\", and \"\"have I paid off my debt\"\", then the question becomes a little more murky. First, yes, you should be diversified. The bulk of how a stock's movement will be in keeping with how its sector moves; so even a really great stock can get creamed if its sector is going down. Diversification between several sectors will help balance that. However, you will have some advantage in this sector. Knowing which products are good, which products everybody in the industry is excited about, is a huge advantage over other investors. It'll help you pick the ones that go up more when the sector goes up, and down less when the sector goes down. That, over time and investments, really adds up. Just remember that a good company and a good stock investment are not the same thing. A great company can have a sky-high valuation -- and if you buy it at that price, you can sit there and watch your investment sink even as the company is growing and doing great things. Have patience, know which companies are good and which are bad, and wait for the price to come to you. One final note: it also depends on what spot you are in. If you're a young guy looking looking to invest his first few thousand in the market, then go for it. On the other hand, if you're older, and we're talking about a couple hundred grand you've got saved up, then it's a whole different ball of wax. It that spot, you're back to managing risk, and need to build a solid portfolio, at a measured pace.\"" }, { "docid": "226496", "title": "", "text": "It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:" }, { "docid": "24822", "title": "", "text": "I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation. When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates." }, { "docid": "133373", "title": "", "text": "It has got to do with the irrationality of humans. The so called long term investor is in it for the long term, they are not worried about market fluctuations nor timing the market. But yet they will aim to try to get a bargain when they buy in. It is contradictory in a way. Think about it; if I buy a stock and it drops by 30% I am not worried because I am in it for the long term, but I am worried about getting 1% off when I buy it. They usually tend to buy when the stock starts falling. However, what they don’t realise is when a stock starts falling there is no telling when it will stop. So even if they get a bargain for that day, it is usually quickly wiped out a few days later. Instead, of waiting for the price to find support and start recovering, they are eager to buy what they think is a bargain. I think this type of long term investing is very risky, and the main reason is because the investor has no plan. They just try to buy so called bargain stocks and hold them until they need the money (usually in retirement). But what happens if the stock price is lower when they want to retire than when they bought it? I hope no long term investor was trying to retire in 2008. If they simply had a plan to indicate when they would buy and under what conditions they would sell, and have a risk management plan in place, then maybe they could reduce their risk somewhat and conserve their capital. A good article to read on this is What's Wrong With Long-Term Investing." }, { "docid": "176699", "title": "", "text": "Yes, the stock price drops on official listing. But what gonna happen on first trade after the dividend date, is up to the market. The market is the market, the rules are the rules. I saw prices going up more than once just after the dividend date, exactly because people think will be cheaper. Market doesn't always follow rules." }, { "docid": "499811", "title": "", "text": "Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out." }, { "docid": "330041", "title": "", "text": "\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "127702", "title": "", "text": "I don't think you are reading the stock chart right. ORCL has a beta of 1.12 which means it has more volatility than the market as a whole. See image below for a fairly wild stock chart for a year. I would not truly consider ESPP participation investing, unless you intend to buy and hold the stock. If you intend to sell the stock soon after you are able, it is more speculation. ESPP's are okay based upon the terms. If the stock was a constant price, and you could sell right away, then an ESPP plan would be easy money. Often, employees are often given a 15% discount to purchase the stock. If you can sell it before any price drop, then you are guaranteed to make 15% on the money invested minus any commissions. Some employers make ESPP participants hold the stock for a year. This makes such a plan less of a value. The reasons are the stock can drop in price during that time, you could need the money, or (in the best case) your money is tied up longer making the ROI less. The reasons people invest in stock are varied and is far to much to discuss in a single post. Some of your colleagues are using the ESPP solely to earn the discount in their money." }, { "docid": "549422", "title": "", "text": "\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\"" }, { "docid": "196461", "title": "", "text": "What it is trying to describe is the psychology around the current price of the stock. In candlestick charts for example, if you get what is called a Bearish Engulfing Candle (where the open is higher than the previous day's close and the close is lower than the previous day's open) at the top of an uptrend, this could mean that the top may have been reached and the bears are taking over the bulls. A Bearish Engulfing candle is seen as a bearish reversal pattern, as the bulls start the day by opening the stock at a higher price than yesterday's close, but by the end of the day the bears have taken over as the price drops below yesterday's open. This reversal pattern can be even more pronounced and effective if it coincides with other chart indicators, such as an overbought momentum indicator. If you want to learn more look up about the Psychology of the market and Candlestick Charting." }, { "docid": "420046", "title": "", "text": "You should be worried. You have made the mistake of entering an investment on the recommendation of family/friend. The last think you should do is make another mistake of just leaving it and hoping it will go up again. Your stock has dropped 37.6% from its high of $74.50. That means it has to go up over 60% just to reach the high of $74.50. You are correct this may never happen or if it does it could take a long, long time to get up to its previous highs. What is the company doing to turn its fortunes around? Take a look at some other examples: QAN.AX - Qantas Airways This stock reached a high of around $6 in late 2007 after a nice uptrend over a year and a half, it then dropped drastically at the start of the GFC, and has since kept falling and is now priced at just $1.15. QAN reported its first ever loss earlier this year, but its problems were evident much earlier. AAPL - Apple Inc. AAPL reach a high of just over $700 in September 2013, then dropped to around $400 and has recovered a bit to about $525 (still 25% below its highs) and looks to be at the start of another downtrend. How long will it take AAPL to get back to $700, more than 33% from its current price? TEN.AX - Ten Network Holdings Limited TEN reached a high of $4.26 in late 2004 after a nice uptrend during 2004. It then started a steep journey downwards and is still going down. It is now priced at just $0.25, a whopping 94% below its high. It will have to increase by 1600% just to reach its high of $4.26 (which I think will never happen). Can a stock come back from a drastic downtrend? Yes it can. It doesn't always happen, but a company can turn around and can reach and even surpass it previous highs. The question is how and when will this happen? How long will you keep your capital tied up in a stock that is going nowhere and has every chance of going further down? The most important thing with any investment is to protect your current capital. If you lose all your capital you cannot make any new investments until you build up more capital. That is why it is so important to have a risk management strategy and decide what is your get out point if things go against you before you get into any new investment. Have a stop loss. I would get out of your investment before you lose more capital. If you had set a stop loss at 20% off the stock's last highs, you would have gotten out at about $59.60, 28% higher than the current share price of $46.50. If you do further analysis on this company and find that it is improving its prospects and the stock price breaks up through its current ranging band, then you can always buy back in. However, do you still want to be in the stock if it breaks the range band on the downside? In this case who knows how low it can continue to go. N.B. This is my opinion, as others would have theirs, and what I would do in your current situation with this stock." }, { "docid": "287600", "title": "", "text": "\"Market cap doesn't mean that much money went into the system. Money in equals money out over time, and is not directly tied to market cap, which can actually be lower if price drops far enough. These concepts are the same for all traded assets, such as stocks, bonds, and commodities. \"\"Market cap\"\" is simply the current price times the number of shares available in the market. So a $300 billion market cap does not mean $300 billion was paid to somebody to buy it all. Instead, what's happened is that some money went in at first, but much much less, and then price increased. Bitcoin is a little different in that \"\"money in\"\" for many innovators and early adopters was in the form of time spent and contributing to the network (what they call mining). 1 Now, as to the price jump, that's an effect of market forces. For many reasons, the market has clamored to buy bitcoin over the last year 2, but many already holding bitcoin weren't ready to sell. Supply and demand worked in a way that increased price. Supply low, demand high, price increases. This situation could easily reverse. Just as suddenly as the market wanted bitcoin it can decide it doesn't want bitcoin. Supply and demand would work in a way that would decrease price. Supply high, demand low, price decreases. This kind of massive market price movement in this short timeframe is exactly what traders mean by \"\"volatile\"\". It's actually not that unusual, it's just that most stocks and other assets that experience such gains don't get much media attention. Further, gains like this often reflect \"\"inflated\"\" prices, market \"\"euphoria\"\", and trading \"\"bubbles\"\". All of these terms essentially mean \"\"price will correct (go down) eventually, because price is currently much higher than actual value\"\". If the market loses all faith in the asset, price will drop to zero and the \"\"money in equals money out\"\" maxim breaks down. Some traders will be left \"\"holding the bag\"\", meaning they owned the stock at the moment trading permanently ceased. 3 NOTES: Exact reasons cannot be pinpointed with facts. Instead, we enter the realm of opinion on this point. In my opinion, bitcoin has increased massively in value mostly due to the media attention it has received. And this media attention is not new. It received equally pervasive attention in 2013. As an effect, price went from under $100 to over $1000 back to under $200 in about 20 months. It's great news if you're a trader. You could have made tons of money. As for the early bitcoiners, it was actually kind of annoying because it then brought in all the skeptics calling it a \"\"ponzi\"\" scheme or \"\"pyramid\"\" scheme, despite the quite obvious fact that bitcoin cannot be either by definition. Further upward market forces may have come from the fact that bitcoin is built on an innovative technology that may very well change the way we do a lot of things in the future. I'm referring to \"\"blockchain\"\". This effect can be seen in several failing companies rising from the darkness like Valkrie simply by adding the work blockchain to their name. I personally find this exactly analogous to the \"\"dot com bubble\"\", where companies in the late 1990's made millions in stock selloffs simply by adding \"\".com\"\" to their name, despite having no profits or sometimes not even a working product. For high volatility stocks, this is not unusual. Many \"\"penny stocks\"\" fail, and typically the road down is faster than the road up. Bitcoin may indeed fail, but again, it's a bit different than a stock. Bitcoin is not a company. There's no financials for Bitcoin, no VC investors, board members to report to, no product to produce, etc. Bitcoin is designed to simply be a thing itself. The hope is to disrupt currency and commodity markets and create a new \"\"store of value.\"\" Literally, Bitcoin is designed to have intrinsic value. Whether it's actually working at this point is still unknown.\"" }, { "docid": "139094", "title": "", "text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "93971", "title": "", "text": "For all stocks, expected Dividends are a part of the price it is traded for - consider that originally, the whole idea of stocks was to participate in the earnings of the company = get dividends. The day the dividend is paid, that expectation is of course removed, and thereby the stock value reduced by just the amount of dividend paid. You will see that behavior for all stocks, everywhere. The dividend in your example is just uncommonly high relative to the stock price; but that is a company decision - they can decide whatever amount they want as a dividend. In other words, the day before dividend payments, investors value the stock at ~14 $, plus an expected dividend payment of 12 $, which adds to 26 $. The day after the dividend payment, investors still value the stock at ~14 $, plus no more dividend payment = 0 $. Nothing changed really in the valuation." } ]

[ { "docid": "501838", "title": "", "text": "Yield can be thought of as the interest rate you would receive from that investment in the form of a dividend for stocks or interest payments on a bond. The yield takes into account the anticipated amount to be received per share/unit per year and the current price of the investment. Of course, the yield is not a guaranteed return like a savings account. If the investment yield is 4% when you buy, it can drop in value such that you actually lose money during your hold period, despite receiving income from the dividend or interest payments." }, { "docid": "139094", "title": "", "text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\"" }, { "docid": "484778", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"" }, { "docid": "421371", "title": "", "text": "\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \"\"the market\"\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \"\"earnings per share\"\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \"\"price-earnings ratio\"\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \"\"yield\"\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \"\"book value\"\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\"" }, { "docid": "431814", "title": "", "text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)" }, { "docid": "13299", "title": "", "text": "\"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should \"\"buy it from yourself\"\" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either.\"" }, { "docid": "51205", "title": "", "text": "Here's what Investopedia says about payouts for ex-dividend stocks: A stock trades ex-dividend on or after the ex-dividend date (ex-date). At this point, the person who owns the security on the ex-dividend date will be awarded the payment, regardless of who currently holds the stock. After the ex-date has been declared, the stock will usually drop in price by the amount of the expected dividend. Read more: Ex-Dividend Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ex-dividend.asp#ixzz4Nl4J3s4k I hope this helps. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "301757", "title": "", "text": "Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below. This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP." }, { "docid": "102026", "title": "", "text": "It definitely depends on the exchange you are trading on. I'm not familiar with Scottrade, but a standard practice is to fulfill limit orders in the order they are placed. Most of the time, you wouldn't see stocks trade significantly under your bid price, but since penny stocks are very volatile, it's more likely their price could drop quickly past your bid and then return above it while only fulfilling a portion of the orders placed. Example 1. Penny stock priced at $0.12 2. Others place limit orders to buy at $0.10 3. You place limit order to buy at $0.10 4. Stock price drops to $0.07 and some orders are filled (anything $0.07 or higher) based on a first-come first-served basis 5. Due to the increase in purchases of the penny stock, the price rises above $0.10 before your order is filled ***EDIT*** - Adding additional clarification from comment section. A second example If the price drops from $0.12 to $0.07, then orders for all prices from $0.07 and above will start to be filled from the oldest order first. That might mean that the oldest order was a limit buy order for 100 shares at $0.09, and since that is above the current ask price, it will be filled first. The next order might be for 800 shares at $0.07. It's possible for a subset of these to be filled (let's say 400) before the share's price increases from the increased demand. Then, if the price goes above $0.10, your bid will not be filled during that time." }, { "docid": "576624", "title": "", "text": "As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp" }, { "docid": "71924", "title": "", "text": "\"A big part of the answer depends on how \"\"beaten down\"\" the stock is, how long it will take to recover from the drop, and your taste for risk. If you honestly believe the drop is a temporary aberration then averaging down can be a good strategy to lower your dollar-cost average in the stock. But this is a huge risk if you're wrong, because now you're going to magnify your losses by piling on more stock that isn't going anywhere to the shares you already own at a higher cost. As @Mindwin pointed out correctly, the problem for most investors following an \"\"average down\"\" strategy is that it makes them much less likely to cut their losses when the stock doesn't recover. They basically become \"\"married\"\" to the stock because they've actualized their belief the stock will bounce back when maybe it never will or worse, drops even more.\"" }, { "docid": "537862", "title": "", "text": "ChelseaFC rocked number 2, so before I try to answer number 1, I'll just mention that academics generally ignored negative *real* interest rates, and have always admitted that negative *nominal* rates were perfectly possible. There's nothing in his explanation that I think is controversial at this point though. As for number 1, a drop in a company's share price affects the company's ability to raise cash in the present and future. In a closely related issue, that drop can affect the company's ability to compensate its employees through options and restricted stock grants. In the long run (and I suspect you already know this), and drop in the share price affects the shareholders' wealth, and can lead them to demand that changes be made to be firm's operations (usually, changes made to who's running the firm). If a firm doesn't need more financing, and it doesn't pay any employees with stock or derivatives on its stock, then changes to its stock price won't affect the firm's operations in the slightest. Naturally, this assuming that the change in stock prices isn't indicative of changes to the economy, but that's a causal relationship in the other direction (the stock price reflects changes in operations, not the other way around)." }, { "docid": "472537", "title": "", "text": "The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for." }, { "docid": "362250", "title": "", "text": "No, don't bother. You need to decide what you are saving for, and how much risk you are prepared to take. It would make sense if you wanted the money only in x years, and couldn't afford to lose say 20% or more if the stock market crashed the day before you needed the cash. Typically if you are about to retire and buy an annuity, you want to protect your capital. This isn't you. At 28, you might be saving for a wedding, a deposit on a house, possibly for school fees, or for eventual retirement. It doesn't sound like you need to get back exactly 24k in July 2022. Keep the 6 months expenses in accounts that you can withdraw from at short notice. Some of this in a current account, some might be in a savings account that doesn't pay interest if you make withdrawals. After that, I'd stick most of the rest in stock market tracker funds, but you might go for actively managed funds instead (ask another question and take professional advice, there will presumably be local tax considerations too), and add in most of your monthly savings too. These should beat the 2.3% over the 5 years, and you can liquidate them easily if you want to buy a house. If there is a recession and a stock market dip, you presumably have the flexibility to hold on to them longer for the economy to recover. And if you are intending to buy a house, then a recession will probably also involve a fall in house prices, so the loss in your savings will be somewhat balanced by the drop in the purchase price of your house. Of course, the worst case scenario is a severe downturn where you lose your job, are unemployed for a considerable period of time, burn through your emergency fund, and need to sell shares at a considerable loss to meet your expenses. You might have family or dependents that you can borrow from or would need to support, which would change your tolerance for risk. Having money locked away for 5 years in this scenario is even worse. So if you don't want to put all your non-emergency savings into the stock market, you still want to choose something that is accessible at a slightly lower interest rate. But ultimately it sounds like you can afford to lose some of your savings, and the probability is that you will be rewarded with much better returns than 2.3% over 5 years." }, { "docid": "115553", "title": "", "text": "No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security." }, { "docid": "305117", "title": "", "text": "From my experience you don't need knowledge of accounting to pick good stocks. The type of investing you are referring to is fundamental. This is finding out about the company, this websites should help you start off: http://en.tradehero.mobi/how-to-choose-a-stock-fundamental-analysis/ Investopedia will also be a useful website in techniques. A bit of knowledge in economics will be helpful in understanding how current affairs will affect a market, which will affect stock prices. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. For example looking at charts from previous years it shows the last time there was a huge recession the dollar did well and commodities didn't. In this recession we are entering you can see the same thing happening. Read about the different techniques before limiting yourself to just looking at financial statements you may find a better technique suited to you, like these technical analysts: http://etfhq.com/blog/2013/03/02/top-technical-analysts/ Hope this helps." }, { "docid": "7593", "title": "", "text": "@Joe.E, I disagree with your logic. The IPO clearly didn't go well--not relative to other IPOs. Were it not for the stocks underwriters stepping in late in the trading day, Facebook would likely have closed below their opening price. This story and others indicate that institution investors were given negative information by an analyst for the underwriters that other investors didn't have. This inside knowledge is certainly contributing to the drop in the stock. It's fair to argue that many individual investors were suckered into buying the stock at the IPO price because of this incomplete disclosure. It wouldn't surprise if what's happens has a negative impact on future trading volume, and creates reluctance to invest in the firm--which would certainly be an additional negative outcome beyond the dropping stock price. Edit: Dilip mentioned a lawsuit. Here's a link to an article about it." }, { "docid": "505351", "title": "", "text": "Very wealthy people usually have an investment manager who is constantly moving money between investments and accounts. They hold cash (or cash equivalent) accounts for use in a near-term buying opportunity, for example if they believe certain stocks will go down in price soon. This amount can vary from under 1% (for a money manager with no intention of any short-term trading) to over 20% (for a market pessimist who expects a huge price reduction shortly). In rare cases they will also hold significant cash because of a planned large purchase, but there's almost never a reason for that to exceed 1% of their net worth." }, { "docid": "470226", "title": "", "text": "Apple closed Friday 9/23 at $403.40. This is what the Puts look like, note the 2013 expiration. (The rest is hypothetical, I am not advising this.) As a fan of Apple and feeling the stock may stay flat but won't tank, I sell you the $400 put for $64.65. In effect I am saying that I am ready willing and able to buy aapl for $400 (well, $40,000 for 100 shares) and I have enough margin in my account to do so, $20,000. If Apple keeps going up, I made my $6465 (again it's 100 shares) but no more. If it drops below $400, I only begin to lose money if it goes below $335.35. You, the put buyer are betting it will drop by this amount (more than 15% from today) and are willing to pay the price for this Put today." } ]

[ { "docid": "319599", "title": "", "text": "Well I'm not going to advise whether it's a good idea to invest in this company (though often OTC is pretty scary), but it DOES have a product (vivio, an ad blocker), it did post financials and it's trading on the OTC-QB (which is better than the pink sheets), so you need to look these over and study up on the product to decide if it is overpriced or not. What might have occurred (viz the Patriot Berry Farm becoming Cyberfort) is that the latter bought up the stock of the former (this is, I believe, called using a shell, which is not necessarily a bad thing) and is using this as a way to be registered, i.e. sell to non-accredited investors via the OTC market. So I'm really just answering your third question: yes, you have to do a lot of due diligence to see if buying this stock is a good deal or not. It might be the next big thing. Or it might not. It certainly is the case that low trading volume allows a relatively small trade to really change the stock price, so the penny stocks do tend to be easier to 'inflate'. Side comment: the bid/ask spreads are pretty big, with a best bid of 0.35 and best ask of 0.44." } ]

[ { "docid": "261640", "title": "", "text": "\"The penny/pink sheet stocks you tend to see promoted are the ones a) with small public floats or, b) they are thinly traded. This means that any appreciable change in buy/sell volume will have an outsized effect on the stock's share price, even when the underlying fundamentals are not so great. Promoters are frequently paid based on how much they can move a stock's price, but such moves are not long-lasting. They peter out when the trading volumes return to more normal ranges for the stock because all of the hype has died out. There are some small-cap NASDAQ stocks which can be susceptible to promotion for the same reason -- they have small floats and/or are thinly traded. Once someone figures out the best targets, they'll accumulate a position and then start posting all kinds of \"\"news\"\" on the web in an effort to drum up interest so they can sell off their position into the buying that follows. The biggest problem with penny/pink sheet stocks is that they frequently fail to publish reliable financial statements, and their ownership is of a dubious nature. In the past, these types of stocks have been targeted by organized crime syndicates, which ran their own \"\"pump and dump\"\" operations as a way to make relatively easy money. This may still be true to some extent today. Be wary of investing in any publicly-traded firm that has to use promoters to drum up investor interest, because it can be a serious red flag. Even if it means missing out on a short-term opportunity, research the company before investing. Read its financials, understand how it has behaved through its trading history, learn about the products/services it is selling. Do your homework. Otherwise you are doing the investing equivalent of taking your money and lighting it on fire. Remember, there's a good reason these companies are trading as penny/pink sheet stocks, and it generally has nothing to do with the notion (the promoters will tell you) that somehow the \"\"market has missed out on this amazing opportunity.\"\" Pump and dump schemes, which lie at the heart of almost all stock promotion, rely on convincing you, the investor, that you're smart enough to see what others haven't. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "304023", "title": "", "text": "\"ETF Creation and Redemption Process notes the process: While ETF trading occurs on an exchange like stocks, the process by which their shares are created is significantly different. Unless a company decides to issue more shares, the supply of shares of an individual stock trading in the marketplace is finite. When demand increases for shares of an ETF, however, Authorized Participants (APs) have the ability to create additional shares on demand. Through an \"\"in kind\"\" transfer mechanism, APs create ETF units in the primary market by delivering a basket of securities to the fund equal to the current holdings of the ETF. In return, they receive a large block of ETF shares (typically 50,000), which are then available for trading in the secondary market. This ETF creation and redemption process helps keep ETF supply and demand in continual balance and provides a \"\"hidden\"\" layer of liquidity not evident by looking at trading volumes alone. This process also works in reverse. If an investor wants to sell a large block of shares of an ETF, even if there seems to be limited liquidity in the secondary market, APs can readily redeem a block of ETF shares by gathering enough shares of the ETF to form a creation unit and then exchanging the creation unit for the underlying securities. Thus, the in-kind swap to the underlying securities is only done by APs so the outflow would be these individuals taking a large block of the ETF and swapping it for the underlying securities. The APs would be taking advantage of the difference between what the ETF's trading value and the value of the underlying securities.\"" }, { "docid": "476859", "title": "", "text": "\"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered \"\"distressed assets\"\". Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders. Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? \"\"There's a sucker born every minute.\"\" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity. For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading. As such, the best case scenario was literally 100% profit on holding that distressed equity.\"" }, { "docid": "478242", "title": "", "text": "At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty." }, { "docid": "115264", "title": "", "text": "I think that author does a disservice by writing such seemingly sensible articles without actually knowing how things work. If I didn’t know better, I would think this guy was teaching me something. It’s a shame he did not do research before he started writing. Let’s say you buy a classic car. You take super good care of it, all original, mint condition. You paid cash for it out of your savings. This is a balance sheet transaction that has nothing to do with income. You traded your cash asset for a classic car asset. Now let’s say this car is so rare and you keep it in such good condition that it gains value every year. Maybe it was worth $15k when you bought it, but this year it’s already worth $17k. Great job on making a great purchase! But is that $2k gain counted as income to you? No, it is not. The value of that asset on your balance sheet went up, but you did not make anything off of that increase in value because you have not sold it. If you had to pay taxes on the increase in value every year, those taxes would essentially force you to sell that car to pay the taxes just because you took care of it. Additionally, in the long term, no one would want to own anything, so this would destroy the value of everyone’s stuff, but I digress. In this example, amazon stock is the car. The author is seeing the increase in stock value adding to the balance sheets of the investors who bought the stock and confusing that with income. Back to our example, let’s say your car increased in value $2k a year for two years and you decide to sell it for $19k - now we are about to realize some income! Since you bought it for $15k and sold for $19k, you earned an income of the difference, or $4k. Your income wasn’t $19k, because you originally put $15k in cash into the car. That cash was already saved from income you made in the past, and it is not counted again as income in this sale. Because you did not work for this new car sale income, but it was derived from asset growth, the income is called capital gains. You invested your capital ($15k) into the asset (car), and that asset appreciated. When you sold it, you received capital (money) back in exchange for that asset. The capital you received is more than what you invested, which is to say you gained $4k of capital by investing in and then selling your asset (car). Because you held the car for two years, you qualify for lower long term capital gains tax rate on that $4k. Had you sold it after year 1, you would’ve paid your regular normal income tax rate on those capital gains. Either way, you owe the tax when you sell the asset, not when it appreciates. I’m sure you realize this already, but if we change the car to amazon stock in my story, this is exactly how it works with investors. The author gets several things wrong 1 - amazon profits are not passed through to shareholders for income tax purposes. If amazon paid dividends, those dividends would be taxed at payout at the long term capital gains rate, and they would be paid out of cash amazon has left after it already paid corporate taxes on profits. Amazon has decided they can add more value to investors by using cash to grow instead of paying dividends. When the investors sell the stock, they will owe capital gains on the growth of that stock. If amazon is correct that using cash to grow, then investors will effectively pay more when they sell the stock than they would pay today if dividends were paid. 2 - asset appreciation is not income. Those investors will realize the income when they sell the stock, and they will pay the tax then. 3 - he is missing the point entirely on why amazon runs a low profit or how business strategy translates into financials. Low prices are not a function of low profitability. Low profitability could be an adverse result of low pricing, but being low profit in order to be low price is a ridiculous and failing strategy. Amazon’s low pricing is a function of their unparalleled buying power, unparalleled consumer and product data, amazing logistics prowess, clever loyalty programs like amazon prime, and many other brilliant things they’ve done. Their low profitability is a function of their investment in things like amazon fresh, amazon Alexa, drone delivery, automated convenience stores, building out cloud computing infrastructure, and many other R&amp;D projects, $4 billion in original content spending for amazon prime video, and all kinds of expenditures years ahead of when they become profitable. By the time consumers want it, amazon already built it three years ago - this is the power of amazon. Sometimes multi billion dollar experiments fail, and all that money was for nothing. Sometimes they lose money for a few years and then become the infrastructure that runs a third of the internet. Amazon does not let fear of failure stop them, they invest in growth with their cash. This is how Bezos thinks - how do we build the future, not how can I avoid tax I do need to make a disclaimer here - there could be special tax treatment of classic cars that makes my example not work. Also classic cars may not appreciate in value. I don’t know anything about classic cars, I just picked a politically neutral thing to put in my story and made some assumptions to illustrate how capital gains work. My story is definitely how stocks work, and probably cars, but I just want to point out that I don’t know shit about car collecting." }, { "docid": "197047", "title": "", "text": "Ok you're looking at this in a very confusing way. First, as said by CapitalNumb3rs, the dividend yield is the dividends paid in the year as a percent of the stock price. Given this fact then if the stock price moves down and the dividend stays the same then the yield increases. Company's don't usually pay out on a yield basis, that's mostly just a calculation to measure how strong a dividend is. This could mean either A. The stock is underpriced and will rise which will lower the yield to a more normal level or B. the company is not doing as well and eventually the dividends will decrease to a point where the yield again looks more normal. Second off let's look at it in a more realistic way that still takes into account your assumptions: **YEAR 1** 1. Instead of assuming buying 35% let's put this into a share amount. Let's say there are 1,000,000 shares so you just bought 350k shares for $700k. You paid a price of $2/share. Let's assume the market decides that's a fair price and it stays that way through the end of year 1. This gives us a market capitalization of $2 million. 2. The dividend paid out at year 1 is $60k so you could calculate on a per share basis which would be a dividend of $60k / 1 million shares or a $0.06 dividend per share. Our stock price is still at $2.00 so our yield comes out to $0.06 / $2.00 or 3.0% **YEAR 2** Assuming no additional shares issued there are still a total of 1 million shares outstanding. You owned 350k and now want to purchase another 50k (5% of outstanding share float). The market price you are able to purchase the 50k shares at has now changed which means that share price is now valued at $1.50 / share. We have a dividend paid out at $100k, which comes out to a dividend per share of $0.10. We have a share value of $1.50 and the $0.10 dividend per share giving us a new yield of 6.66%. **CONCLUSION:** There are many factors that can cause a company's stock price to fluctuate, some of it is hype based but some of it is a result of material changes. In your case the stock went down 25%. In most scenarios where a stock would have that much decline it would likely either not have been paying a dividend in the first place or would maybe not be paying one for much longer. Most companies that pay dividends are larger and more mature companies with a steady, healthy and predictable cash flow. Also most companies that are that size would not trade a stock under $3.00, I know this is just an example but the scenario is definitely a bit extreme in terms of the price drop and dividend increase. Again the yield is just a calculation that depends on the dividend that is usually planned in advance and the stock price that can fluctuate for many reasons. I hope this made everything more clear and let me know if you have any other questions." }, { "docid": "139089", "title": "", "text": "The penny pilot program has a dramatic effect on increasing options liquidity. Bids can be posted at .01 penny increments instead of .05 increments. A lot of money is lost dealing with .05 increments. Issues are added to the penny pilot program based on existing liquidity in both the stock and the options market, but the utility of the penny pilot program outweighs the discretionary liquidity judgement that the CBOE makes to list issues in that program. The reason the CBOE doesn't list all stocks in the penny pilot program is because they believe that their data vendors cannot handle all of the market data. But they have been saying this since 2006 and storage and bandwidth technology has greatly improved since then." }, { "docid": "384267", "title": "", "text": "Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations." }, { "docid": "293758", "title": "", "text": "The biggest problem with penny stocks is that they are easily manipulated, and they frequently are. Many of the companies trading as penny stocks have poor track histories of accurate financials, and what information that is available is not very reliable or verifiable. I recall a few years ago when there were articles out there in financial circles talking about how more than a few penny stocks were being manipulated by organized crime syndicates. Another big issue with penny stocks is liquidity. Since they're so thinly traded (not a great deal of daily volume), anyone who puts enough money into a penny stock to make it worth the effort almost certainly becomes the biggest trader in the stock, which can make it tough to liquidate positions. There are not enough market makers in the stock to be competitive, so you have to accept the bid/ask prices of whoever is willing to execute the trades, so the margins evaporate quickly. Penny stocks are something you can trade if you're bored, have money to burn, and just want to toy around with something just for the heck of it that you'll ultimately lose out on." }, { "docid": "335903", "title": "", "text": "\"None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Sure it is, it's just not always obvious. When a company makes money it either: Other then the fourth option, the first three all increase the total value of the company. If you owned 1% of a company that was worth X, and is now worth X+1, the value of that 1% ownership should go up as well. One model of the value of a share of stock is the present value of all future cash flows that the company produces for its shareholders, which would be either through dividends, earnings (provided that they are invested back into the company) or through liquidation (sale). So as earnings increase (or more accurately as projected future earnings increase), so does the value of a share of the company. Also note that the payment of dividends causes the price of a stock to go down when the dividend is paid, since that's equity (cash) that's leaving the company, reducing the value of the company by an equivalent amount. Of course, there's also something to be said for the behavioral aspect of investing, meaning that people sometimes invest in companies that they like, and sell stock of companies that they don't like or disagree with (e.g. Nordstrom's).\"" }, { "docid": "314085", "title": "", "text": "\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"" }, { "docid": "91870", "title": "", "text": "I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share." }, { "docid": "559915", "title": "", "text": "\"... which is why the entire \"\"it costs 1.8 cents to make a penny\"\" argument is meaningless. We're not losing 0.8 cents per penny made. If that was true, we'd also be ***gaining*** $99.877 for every $100 bill that was printed ([which costs 12.3 cents to make](http://mentalfloss.com/article/68650/how-much-does-it-cost-manufacture-us-paper-money)) - which would more than offset the non-existent \"\"loss\"\" that people seem to think we incur producing pennies.\"" }, { "docid": "588384", "title": "", "text": "These stocks have no value to them, are just waiting for paper work to liquefy and vanish. The other gamblers are bots waiting for some sucker to buy so they can sell right away. So maybe a fresh new penny stock that hasn't been botted yet gives some higher chance of success, but you probably need to be a bot to sell it quickly enough. All in all not that much different from buying regular stocks..." }, { "docid": "307524", "title": "", "text": "Well, to put things simply, the government debt level has to do with the money spent by government vs the revenue the government collects. The only tenuous connection between the stock market price and the capital gains tax collected at the end of the year. Granted there should be an increase in the CGT, it would be on the actual transactions made that incurred in Capital Gains. That is, at best, a drop in the bucket. Which Trump, by the way, wants to reduce. Since over a year, 100% of the shares are not exchanged, this would not be even remotely close to the increase in stock market value. The Government simply us no ownership over the stock market value. The stock market also does not count into GDP, so you couldn’t use that to say your debt to GDP ratio declined. They are just so unrelated that it’s senseless to link them." }, { "docid": "323244", "title": "", "text": "A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question." }, { "docid": "363204", "title": "", "text": "\"Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of \"\"pump and dump scheme\"\" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the \"\"inflator\"\" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them.\"" }, { "docid": "196404", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;1.) The US mint is a private business. There's your first flaw of any argument about currency before we talk further. Policies are set by the US Congress, and the Mint operates under the auspices of the US Treasury. You don't point out how any of this relates to anything, so I guess no point in going any further. &gt;2.) That small percentage value of the penny \"\"not being worth your time\"\" is a huge fallacy. It might not be worth anything to him, but I generally would be intent on getting a few cents back that are due to me. Similarly, using his example of 3 cents adding 2 seconds to the transaction ends up at a rate of $54/hr. That's quite a bit of money to be considered. If we assume that any penny related transaction is equally likely to have 1 - 4 pennies involved, and we take the 2 second figure as accurate, then we come up with $45 per hour. However, there is the time of the cashier and anyone behind you to consider. That 2 seconds is multiplied by everyone, but only you get the pennies. If we figure you have to wait as often as you receive pennies on the whole, then the figure gets slashed, I'm guessing under $10 an hour. Your figure also fails to account for what would happen if the penny were removed from circulation. Most likely outcome would be that transactions where you'd make 1 or 2 pennies would be rounded down and transactions where you'd have gained 3 or 4 pennies would be rounded up. You aren't actually (on the whole) gaining or losing any money at all. &gt;3.) No machines take pennies. Fair enough. Not really the fault of the penny itself, but more so a fault of brash inflation. This isn't about establishing guilt. Pennies are tools and symbols, if they don't serve their purpose, then maybe we should consider removing them. &gt;4.) Supposing the penny does get removed, the axe gets held above the neck of the nickle inevitably. Then the dime, and so on. So? &gt;You'll also see a massive disruption in handling of accounting principles and tax rates due to being forced into /5 rates. All adjustable, yes, but it does cause a whole new mess of issues in it's own right. This can be acknowledged. One might take issue with massive, but a transition would not be free of labor and education costs. &gt;5.) Lincoln's face has nothing to do with this argument. 25 seconds worth of video wasted (that's about 35 pennies worth). Maybe it didn't hit home with you, but the videographer obviously felt he was addressing someone's concern. The psychological impact of change or the not-strictly-scientificattachment to traditions or history would have to be taken into account in a fair evaluation of implementing a big change.\"" }, { "docid": "6369", "title": "", "text": "Most penny stocks go to zero because most businesses fail. You stated in your original post that you were wondering specifically about companies with no assets. These are exactly the kind that fail and go to zero. There are many holes within the regulatory structure that allow for many accounting tricks in penny stock land. And even in areas that are adequately regulated, there will be few to no remedies for the optimistic penny stock shareholder speculator." } ]

[ { "docid": "363204", "title": "", "text": "\"Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of \"\"pump and dump scheme\"\" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the \"\"inflator\"\" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "287325", "title": "", "text": "\"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale. This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called \"\"backdating\"\", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything.\"" }, { "docid": "242663", "title": "", "text": "\"Some thoughts on your questions in order, Duration: You might want to look at the longest-dated option (often a \"\"LEAP\"\"), for a couple reasons. One is that transaction costs (spread plus commission, especially spread) are killer on options, so a longer option means fewer transactions, since you don't have to keep rolling the option. Two is that any fundamentals-based views on stocks might tend to require 3-5 years to (relatively) reliably work out, so if you're a fundamental investor, a 3-6 month option isn't great. Over 3-6 months, momentum, short-term news, short squeezes, etc. can often dominate fundamentals in determining the price. One exception is if you just want to hedge a short-term event, such as a pending announcement on drug approval or something, and then you would buy the shortest option that still expires after the event; but options are usually super-expensive when they span an event like this. Strike: Strike price on a long option can be thought of as a tradeoff between the max loss and minimizing \"\"insurance costs.\"\" That is, if you buy a deeply in-the-money put or call, the time value will be minimal and thus you aren't paying so much for \"\"insurance,\"\" but you may have 1/3 or 1/2 of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss. If you buy a put or call \"\"at the money,\"\" then you might have only say 10% of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss, but almost the whole 10% may be time value (insurance cost), so you are losing 10% if the underlying stock price stays flat. I think of the deep in-the-money options as similar to buying stocks on margin (but the \"\"implied\"\" interest costs may be less than consumer margin borrowing rates, and for long options you can't get a margin call). The at-the-money options are more like buying insurance, and it's expensive. The commissions and spreads add significant cost, on top of the natural time value cost of the option. The annual costs would generally exceed the long-run average return on a diversified stock fund, which is daunting. Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 1: First thing is to be sure the options prices on a given underlying make sense at all; there are things that \"\"should\"\" hold, for example a synthetic long or short should match up to an actual long or short. These kinds of rules can break, for example on LinkedIn (LNKD) after its IPO, when shorting was not permitted, the synthetic long was quite a bit cheaper than a real long. Usually though this happens because the arbitrage is not practical. For example on LNKD, the shares to short weren't really available, so people doing synthetic shorts with options were driving up the price of the synthetic short and down the price of the synthetic long. If you did actually want to be long the stock, then the synthetic long was a great deal. However, a riskless arbitrage (buy synthetic long, short the stock) was not possible, and that's why the prices were messed up. Another basic relationship that should hold is put-call parity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 2: Assuming the relationship to the underlying is sane (synthetic positions equivalent to actual positions) then the valuation of the option could focus on volatility. That is, the time value of the option implies the stock will move a certain amount. If the time value is high and you think the stock won't move much, you might short the option, while if the time value is low and you think the stock will move a lot, you might buy the option. You can get implied volatility from your broker perhaps, or Morningstar.com for example has a bunch of data on option prices and the implied components of the price model. I don't know how useful this really is though. The spreads on options are so wide that making money on predicting volatility better than the market is pretty darn hard. That is, the spread probably exceeds the amount of the mispricing. The price of the underlying is more important to the value of an option than the assumed volatility. How many contracts: Each contract is 100 shares, so you just match that up. If you want to hedge 100 shares, buy one contract. To get the notional value of the underlying multiply by 100. So say you buy a call for $30, and the stock is trading at $100, then you have a call on 100 shares which are currently priced at $10,000 and the option will cost $30*100=3,000. You are leveraged about 3 to 1. (This points to an issue with options for individual investors, which is that one contract is a pretty large notional value relative to most portfolios.)\"" }, { "docid": "190687", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"" }, { "docid": "314085", "title": "", "text": "\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"" }, { "docid": "481683", "title": "", "text": "\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\"" }, { "docid": "481978", "title": "", "text": "I have heard that people say the greater earning means greater intrinsic value of the company. Then, the stock price is largely based on the intrinsic value. So increasing intrinsic value due to increasing earning will lead to increasing stock price. Does this make sense ? Yes though it may be worth dissecting portions here. As a company generates earnings, it has various choices for what it can do with that money. It can distribute some to shareholders in the form of dividends or re-invest to generate more earnings. What you're discussing in the first part is those earnings that could be used to increase the perceived value of the company. However, there can be more than a few interpretations of how to compute a company's intrinsic value and this is how one can have opinions ranging from companies being overvalued to undervalued overall. Of Mines, Forests, and Impatience would be an article giving examples that make things a bit more complex. Consider how would you evaluate a mine, a forest or a farm where each gives a different structure to the cash flow? This could be useful in running the numbers here." }, { "docid": "536564", "title": "", "text": "Just so I'm clear- the end result is a long call, and you think the stock is going up. There is nothing wrong with that fundamentally. Be aware though: That's a negative theta trade. This means if your stock doesn't increase in price during the remaining time to expiration of your call option, the option will lose some of its value every day. It may still lose some of its value every day, depending on how much the stock price increases. The value of the call option just goes down and down as it approaches maturity, even if the stock price stays about the same. Being long a call (or a put) is a tough way to make money in the options market. I would suggest using an out-of-the-money butterfly spread. The potential returns are a bit less. However, this is a cheap positive theta trade so you avoid time decay on the value of the option." }, { "docid": "593", "title": "", "text": "\"Insurance companies on average make money by selling insurance, which means you lose money on average by dealing with them. The insurance is not gambling where the house always wins. This expression is literal in gambling, because that's how they set the odds. Insurance isn't necessarily similar. Example. Suppose there's 10% chance that $10,000 the boat sinks due to a defect. So, on average your loss is going to be $1,000. The variability of your loss measured as its standard deviation is $2,846. The variability of loss is a measure of risk. Now, let's look at two $10,000 boats. There's 1% chance that they both sink, and 18% chance that only one of them sinks. So, the expected loss is, unsurprisingly, $2,000. However, the variability of expected loss is $3,842, not quite twice the risk (variability) of a single boat accident. If you imagine that instead of a couple of boats the insurance has 100 boats, the variability of their loss (hence their risk) will increase only by a factor of 10, not 100 compared to a single boat. This means that their risk in relative terms is smaller than yours, the individual insurer's. What I tried to show was that it is possible to both of you and the insurer to benefit from the arrangement. It doesn't mean that it happens in every case, but generally it does. That's why in actuarial science there's a term fair price. UPDATE I was trying to avoid talking about utility here, because it's an involved subject, but you're dragging the discussion in this direction :) You're right that expected value cannot explain the insurance. The reason is that there's another concept that's necessary in addition to the objective measures such as expected value and risk: I mean the utility function or risk-aversion. So, in short you need to maximize expected utility, not the expected payout. Here's a toy example with the same boat. Assume that insurance is $150, and they pay the entire boat's value in case of accident, i.e. $10,000. You're given two choices effectively. At the end of the year, you have either of the following: You're right that the expected value in the second option can be higher in the second option. Let's say the probability of the loss is 10%, in this case the expected value would $9,900, which is higher than certain value of option 1. Why then some people choose option 2? The reason is that we don't maximize the expected payout, but we maximize the utility, according to modern microeconomics and game theory. Utility is some kind of an function that reflects your preference given the uncertain choices. Every person has their own preferences, and utility function. Let's say that yours is exponential with a=10000. In this case we can calculate the expected utility as follows: The math works out in such a way that it accounts for your risk tolerance. Depending on how much you love or hate risk, your expected utilities for these option will come out differently. For this given toy example it turned out that the expected utility is higher with insurance, so this person should get it. However, for different values of a parameter \"\"a\"\" in the function, it may not make a sense to insure. Some people are risk averse, some are risk lovers in certain situations. That's the reason why given the same options we make different choices. You may say that you don't value certainty enough to buy this insurance. The bottom line is that nobody can tell you that you're wrong to not buy an insurance. If your risk tolerance is high it may not make a sense for you. Having said this all, I must note that sometimes the society doesn't accept your preferences and utility function. Yes, you tell me today that you accept the risk, but tomorrow when the boat sinks you may come to me and say that you can't pay the student loan because of the hardship. That's the reason why it's mandatory to get liability insurance on cars, for instance.\"" }, { "docid": "384267", "title": "", "text": "Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations." }, { "docid": "44666", "title": "", "text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"" }, { "docid": "352485", "title": "", "text": "The answer is that other than a small number of applications (the approx. 10% of gold production that goes to 'industrial uses') gold does not have intrinsic value beyond being pretty and rare (and useful for making jewelry.) There are a number of 'industrial' applications and uses for gold (see other answers for a list) but the volume consumed this way is fairly small, especially relative to the capacity to mine new gold and reclaim existing gold. If you removed investment, and jewelry usage (especially culturally driven jewelry usage) then there's no way the remaining uses for industry and dentistry could sustain the price levels we currently see for gold. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the best data I can find for this shows the total number of tons consumed for industrial uses has been shrinking for several years now, and that was prior to recent price increases, so it is difficult to tie that reduced demand to increasing prices. And one might postulate in a 'collapsed society' you seem to be referring to in your question, that a lot of the recent industrial demand (e.g. the '50 cents of gold in each cellphone') could quite possibly disappear entirely. The argument many people use for gold having value is usually 'been used as money for thousands of years'. But this confuses gold having a value of its own with the reasons why something makes a useful currency. Gold has a large number of characteristics that make it an ideal currency, and of all the elements available it is perhaps the best physical element to serve as a currency. BUT just as with a dollar bill, just because it is a good currency, does NOT give it an intrinsic value. Any currency is only worth what someone will trade you for it. The value is set by the economy etc., not the medium used as a currency. So yes, people will probably always use gold as money, but that doesn't make the money worth anything, it's just a medium of exchange. Incidentally two other things should be noted. The first is that you have a problem when the medium itself used for a currency becomes worth more than the face value. Hence why we stopped using silver in coins, and there were concerns over pennies due to the price of copper. This leads to the second point, which is that currently, gold is TOO RARE to suffice as a world currency, hence why all countries went off the gold standard years ago. The size of national and global economies was growing faster than the supply of gold, and hence it was becoming impossible to have enough gold to back all the currencies (inflation concerns aside)." }, { "docid": "564069", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer: zero. dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can have a disproportionate effect on your assets. (For instance, some sort of scandal involving a particular company can cause its stock to tank.) There are only two reasons I can see to invest in individual stocks: a. You have some unique opportunity to acquire stock that other people might not be able to get (or get at that price). This can be the case if you work for a privately-held company that allows you to buy stock (or options), or allows you to participate in its IPO. Even then, you should not go too crazy, since having too much stock in the company you work for can double your pain if the company falls on hard times (you may lose your job and your investment). b. For fun. If you like tracking stocks and trying to beat the market, you may want to test your skills at this by using a small proportion of your investable cash (no more than 10%). In this case you're not so much hoping to increase your returns as to just enjoy investing more. This can also have a psychological benefit in that it allows you to \"\"blow off steam\"\" and indulge your desire to make decisions, while allowing your passive investments (index funds) to shoulder the load of actually gaining value.\"" }, { "docid": "234935", "title": "", "text": "I guess the opposite of being hedged is being unhedged. Typically, a hedge is an additional position that you would take on in order to mitigate the potential for losses on another position. I'll give an example: Say that I purchase 100 shares of stock XYZ at $10 per share because I believe its price will increase in the future. At that point, my full investment of $1000 is at risk, so the position is not hedged. If the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've lost $200. If the price of XYZ increases to $12, then I've gained $200; the profit/loss curve has a linear relationship to the future stock price. Suppose that I decide to hedge my XYZ position by purchasing a put option. I purchase a single option contract (corresponding to my 100 shares) with a strike price of $10 and an expiration date in January 2013 for a price of $0.50/share. This means that until the contract expires, I can always sell my XYZ shares for a minimum of $10. Therefore, if the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've only lost $50 (the price of the option contract), compared to the $200 that I would have lost if the position was unhedged. Likewise, however, if the price increases to $12, then I've only gained a net total of $150 due to the money I spent on the hedge. (the details of how much money you would actually lose in the hedged scenario are simplified out above; even out-of-the-money options retain some value before expiration, but pricing of options is outside of the scope of this post) So, as a more pointed answer to your question, I would say that the hedged/unhedged status of a position can be characterized by its potential for loss. If you don't have any other assets that will increase in value to offset losses on your position of interest, I would call it unhedged." }, { "docid": "542765", "title": "", "text": "Using Fundamental and Technical Analysis together is actually a good idea for longer term trading of up to 6 months or longer. The whole idea behind trading with Technical Analysis is to increase the probabilities of a trade going in the desired direction by using uncorrelated indicators that produce the same signal to buy or sell at the same time. For example, you might use a Moving Average (MA) as a buy signal when the price falls for a few days, hits the MA and then reverses and starts moving back up. If however, you also include a Stochastic Oscillator (SO) to indicate when the stock is oversold (under 20%), and if the price rebounds from the MA average at the same time as the Stochastic is crossing over in the oversold position, then this may be a higher probability trade. If you also only trade stocks that are Fundamentally healthy (as fundamentally good stocks are more likely to go up than fundamentally bad stocks) then this might increase the probabilities again. Then if you only buy when the market as a whole is moving up, then this will increase your chances again. A few weeks ago at a seminar, the presenter totalled the men in the room to be 76 and the women in the room to be 8. He then asked what will most likely be the next person to walk in the room - a man or a woman? The statistics are on the side of a wan walking in next. This is what we try to do with Technical Analysis, increase our chances when we take a trade. Of course a woman could be the next person to walk in the room, just like any trade can go against you, and this is why we use money management and risk management and take a small loss when a trade does go against you. Lets look at an example where you could incorporate FA with TA to increase your chances of profits: Above is a candlestick chart of Select Harvest (SHV), the green line above the price is the perceived value, the pink line is the 40 day MA, the blue line is the EPS, and the white lines is the Stochastic Oscillator (above 80% being overbought and below 20% is oversold). From Feb 2015 to start of Aug 2015 the stock was uptrending, since then the price reversed and started to downtrend. The stock was determined to be fundamentally good early in 2015 with the perceived value gradually increasing and greater than the share price, and the EPS starting to increase regularly from mid April. Thus, as the stock is seen as fundamentally healthy any price reversal in the vicinity of the MA could be seen as a buy opportunity. In fact there where 2 such opportunities on 31st March and 11th June where price had reversed and rebounded off the MA whist the SO crossed over in or near the oversold area. The price did reverse and then rebounded off the MA again on 9th July, however the SO was not in or near the oversold area on this occasion, so not as high in probability terms. The price still rebounded and went up again, however another momentum indicator (not shown here) shows some bearish divergence in this case - so another reason to possibly keep away at this point in time. A good signal to get out of the trade, that is your stop loss has not already taken you out, is when the price breaks and closes below the MA line. This occurred on 7th August. So if we had bought on the first signal on 31st March for $7.41 and sold when the priced broke through the MA on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made a profit of approx. 59% in just over 4 months. If bought on the second signal on 11th June for $9.98 and again sold on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made about 18% in under 2 months. So the fundamentals, the Price (in relation to MA) and the SO where all lining up to provide two high probability trades. Of course you would need to incorporate you risk management (including stops) in case the price did not continue upwards after you bought. If the market is also moving up on the day of the signal this will further increase your chances. Unless you day trade, which I would avoid, a good way to enter your trades after a signal is to enter a stop buy order after market close to buy if the price moves above the high of the signal day. That way if the market and the stock open and move lower during the day after the signal you avoid entering the trade altogether. This can be incorporated as part of your risk management and trading rules. After the price broke down through the MA we can see that a downtrend commenced which is still current today (in fact I just took a short trade on this stock yesterday). We can also see that the perceived value, whilst still above the price, has reached a peak and is currently moving downwards and the EPS after being flat for a few months has just moved down for the first time in 10 months. So maybe the fundamentals are starting to waver a bit on this stock. It may be a good stock to continue shorting into the future. So basically you can continue using Fundamental Analysis to select which stocks to buy, place them in a watch-list, and then use Technical Analysis to determine when these stocks are starting to uptrend and use a combination of uncorrelated indicators to produce higher probability signals for when to enter your trades." }, { "docid": "154841", "title": "", "text": "The short answer, probably not much. Unless you have a controlling interest in the company. If at least 50%+1 of the shareholder votes are in favor of the dilution then it can be done. There are some SEC rules that should protect against corporate looting and theft like what the Severin side is trying to make it appear as happened. However it would appear that Severin did something stupid. He signed away all of his voting right to someone who would use them to make his rights basically worthless. Had he kept his head in the game he could probably have saved himself. But he didn't. If your average startup started issuing lots of stock and devaluing existing shares significantly then I would expect it would be harder to find investors willing to watch as their investment dwindled. But if you are issuing a limited amount stock to get leverage to grow bigger then it is worth it. In the .com bubble there were quite a few companies that just issued stock to buy other companies. Eventually most of these companies got delisted because they diluted them selves to much when they were overvalued. Any company not just a startup can dilute its shares. Many if not most major companies issue stock to raise capital. This capital is then generally used to build the business further and increase the value of all shares. Most of the time this dilution is very minor (<.1%) and has little if any impact on the stock. There are rules that have to be followed as listed companies are regulated by the SEC. There are less regulations with private corporations. It looks like the dilution was combined with the buyout of the Florida company which probably contributed to the legality of the dilution. With options they are generally issued at a set price. This may be higher or lower than the reported sell price of the stock when the option is issued. The idea is over time the stock will increase in value so that those people who hold on to their options can buy the stock for the price listed on the option. I worked at an ISP start up in the 90's that made it pretty well. I left before the options were issued but I had friends still there that were issued an option at $16 a share the value of the stock at the time of the issue of the option was about 12. Well the company diluted the shares and used them to acquire more ISP's unfortunately this was about the time that DSL And cable internet took off so the dial up market tanked. The value eventually fell to .10 they did a reverse split and when they did the called in all options. The options did not have a positive cash value at any time. Had RMI ever made it big then the options could have been worth millions. There are some people from MS and Yahoo that were in early that made millions off of their options. This became a popular way for startups to attract great talent paying peanuts. They invested their time in the business hoping to strike gold. A lot of IT people got burned so this is less popular among top talent as the primary compensation anymore." }, { "docid": "196404", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;1.) The US mint is a private business. There's your first flaw of any argument about currency before we talk further. Policies are set by the US Congress, and the Mint operates under the auspices of the US Treasury. You don't point out how any of this relates to anything, so I guess no point in going any further. &gt;2.) That small percentage value of the penny \"\"not being worth your time\"\" is a huge fallacy. It might not be worth anything to him, but I generally would be intent on getting a few cents back that are due to me. Similarly, using his example of 3 cents adding 2 seconds to the transaction ends up at a rate of $54/hr. That's quite a bit of money to be considered. If we assume that any penny related transaction is equally likely to have 1 - 4 pennies involved, and we take the 2 second figure as accurate, then we come up with $45 per hour. However, there is the time of the cashier and anyone behind you to consider. That 2 seconds is multiplied by everyone, but only you get the pennies. If we figure you have to wait as often as you receive pennies on the whole, then the figure gets slashed, I'm guessing under $10 an hour. Your figure also fails to account for what would happen if the penny were removed from circulation. Most likely outcome would be that transactions where you'd make 1 or 2 pennies would be rounded down and transactions where you'd have gained 3 or 4 pennies would be rounded up. You aren't actually (on the whole) gaining or losing any money at all. &gt;3.) No machines take pennies. Fair enough. Not really the fault of the penny itself, but more so a fault of brash inflation. This isn't about establishing guilt. Pennies are tools and symbols, if they don't serve their purpose, then maybe we should consider removing them. &gt;4.) Supposing the penny does get removed, the axe gets held above the neck of the nickle inevitably. Then the dime, and so on. So? &gt;You'll also see a massive disruption in handling of accounting principles and tax rates due to being forced into /5 rates. All adjustable, yes, but it does cause a whole new mess of issues in it's own right. This can be acknowledged. One might take issue with massive, but a transition would not be free of labor and education costs. &gt;5.) Lincoln's face has nothing to do with this argument. 25 seconds worth of video wasted (that's about 35 pennies worth). Maybe it didn't hit home with you, but the videographer obviously felt he was addressing someone's concern. The psychological impact of change or the not-strictly-scientificattachment to traditions or history would have to be taken into account in a fair evaluation of implementing a big change.\"" }, { "docid": "137353", "title": "", "text": "\"My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between 13% and 15%. Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican peso. Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments, the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency. For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35. The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)? The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, \"\"does the real value of my stock ownership go down\"\" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much \"\"it depends\"\" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this. The best answer is to say, \"\"Look at history and what happened\"\" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics.\"" }, { "docid": "556109", "title": "", "text": "In the United States investing towards donation is a great idea because you can donate appreciated securities directly rather than donating cash. Notice how much this can benefit you: So you get to both (a) donate untaxed money and then (b) deduct that unrealized money from your income total on your tax return. With the above in mind, a good strategy for investing towards this type of donation would be to pick securities that are likely to increase in market value but not likely to produce any other sort of income. So bonds (which produce lots of interest income), or stocks with dividends, or equity mutual funds (which distribute dividends as capital gains) would all be suboptimal for this purpose. Of course, an even better strategy would be to establish a widely diversified investment portfolio without thought to future donations. Then, once a year (or whenever), evaluate all your investments and find some where the market value has increased. Then donate some of those shares. No special advance planning necessary. Note that your tax consequences could be more complicated depending on your exact situation. Read the section about Capital Gain Property in IRS Pub. 26 for all the details. There may be special limits on the amount you can deduct. Also, donations of short term capital gains are treated much less favorably, so make sure you donate only long term capital gain property." }, { "docid": "293758", "title": "", "text": "The biggest problem with penny stocks is that they are easily manipulated, and they frequently are. Many of the companies trading as penny stocks have poor track histories of accurate financials, and what information that is available is not very reliable or verifiable. I recall a few years ago when there were articles out there in financial circles talking about how more than a few penny stocks were being manipulated by organized crime syndicates. Another big issue with penny stocks is liquidity. Since they're so thinly traded (not a great deal of daily volume), anyone who puts enough money into a penny stock to make it worth the effort almost certainly becomes the biggest trader in the stock, which can make it tough to liquidate positions. There are not enough market makers in the stock to be competitive, so you have to accept the bid/ask prices of whoever is willing to execute the trades, so the margins evaporate quickly. Penny stocks are something you can trade if you're bored, have money to burn, and just want to toy around with something just for the heck of it that you'll ultimately lose out on." } ]

[ { "docid": "42521", "title": "", "text": "\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "576890", "title": "", "text": "I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available. This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert. The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy)." }, { "docid": "454224", "title": "", "text": "A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker." }, { "docid": "351896", "title": "", "text": "The tax consequence is that if you wait until January of 2011 to invest, you won't have the option to sell as a long-term capital gain in 2011. However, this is not a huge point in practice: If your income this year was very low, but will go up in 2011, you might want to convert some or all of it into a roth ira this year. This would let you pay the tax on it at your low tax rate for this year, rather than at the likely higher rate when you retire. An investment consequence is the fact that your money is sitting there, earning a lower expected rate of return than it could be. Not knowing your situation, I can't say how aggressive your holdings will be. Taking a fairly aggressive portfolio, 9% expected yearly return, and not investing for a month, you lose about .75% on average. Not huge, but something to consider. Remember that any decision you make here isn't permanent. If your previous allocation in the 401(k) was 100% in stock funds, you could put it in something like VTI, Vanguard's total US stock market ETF." }, { "docid": "407571", "title": "", "text": "\"Okay. An ETF is an \"\"Exchange Traded Fund\"\". It trades like a stock, on the stock market. Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy. It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies. There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc. REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate.\"" }, { "docid": "190687", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"" }, { "docid": "429827", "title": "", "text": "Can they change the weights? Yes. Will they? It depends. are ETF's fixed from their inception to their de-listing? It's actually not possible for weights to be fixed, since different assets have different returns. So the weights are constantly changing as long as the market is moving. Usually after a certain period or a substantial market move, fund managers would rebalance and bring the weights back to a certain target. The target weights - what your question is really about - aren't necessarily the same as the initial weights, but often times they are. It depends on the objective of the ETF (which is stated in prospectus). In your example, if the manager drops the weight of the most volatile one, the returns of the ETF and the 5 stocks could be substantially different in the next period. This is not desirable when the ETFs objective is to track performance of those 5 stocks. Most if not all ETFs are passively-managed. The managers don't get paid for active management. So they don't have incentive to adjust the weights if their funds are tracking the benchmarks just fine." }, { "docid": "488015", "title": "", "text": "\"IMHO It is definitively not too early to start learning and thinking about personal finances and also about investing. If you like to try stock market games, make sure to use one that includes a realistic fee structure simulation as well - otherwise there'll be a very unpleasant awakening when switching to reality... I'd like to stress the need for low fees with the brokerage account! Sit down and calculate how much fees different brokers take for a \"\"portfolio\"\" of say, 1 ETF, 1 bond, 1 share of about $500 or $1000 each (e.g. order fee, annual fee, fee for paying out interest/dividend). In my experience, it is good if you can manage to make the first small investing steps before starting your career. Real jobs tend to need lots of time (particularly at the beginning), so time to learn investing is extremely scarce right at the time when you for the first time in your life earn money that could/should be invested. I'm talking of very slowly starting with a single purchase of say an ETF, a single bond next time you have saved up a suitable amount of toy money, then maybe a single share (and essentially not doing anything with them in order to avoid further fees). While such a \"\"portfolio\"\" is terrible with respect to diversification and relative fees*, this gives you the possibility to learn the procedures, to see how the fees cut in, what to do wrt taxes etc. This is why I speak about toy money and why I consider this money an investment in education. * An order fee of, say, $10 on a $500 position are terrible 4% (2 x $10) for buying + selling - depending on your local taxes, that would be several years of dividend yield for say some arbitrary Dow Jones ETF. Nevertheless, purchase + sale together are less than 3 cinema tickets.\"" }, { "docid": "487399", "title": "", "text": "I am not preparing for a sudden, major, catastrophic collapse in the US dollar. I am, however, preparing for a significant but gradual erosion of its value through inflation over the space of several years to a decade. To that end, I've invested most of my assets in the stock market (roughly 80%) through major world index funds, and limited my bond exposure (maintaining a small stake in commodity ETFs: gold, silver, platinum and palladium) due to both inflation risk and the inevitability of rising interest rates. I don't think most companies mind overmuch if the dollar falls gradually, as the bulk of their value is in their continuing income stream, not in a dollar-denominated bank account. I also try to keep what I can in tax-deferred accounts: If, after several years, your stocks were up 100% but inflation reduced the dollar's value by 50%, you're still stuck paying taxes on the entire gain, even though it was meaningless. I'm also anticipating tax hikes at some point (though not as a result of the dollar falling). It helps that I'm young and can stand a lot of investment risk." }, { "docid": "112208", "title": "", "text": "You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely." }, { "docid": "30774", "title": "", "text": "The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share." }, { "docid": "426591", "title": "", "text": "\"Former financial analyst here, happy to help you. First off, you are right to not be entirely trusting of advisors and attorneys. They are usually trustworthy, but not always. And when you are new to this, the untrustworthy ones have a habit of reaching you first - you're their target market. I'll give you a little breakdown of how to plan, and a starting investment. First, figure out your future expenses. A LOT of that money may go to medical bills or associated care - don't forget the costs of modifications and customizations to items so you can have a better quality of life. Cars can be retrofit to assist you with a wheelchair, you can build a chair lift into a staircase, things like that which will be important for mobility - all depending on the lingering medical conditions. Mobility and independence will be critically important for you. Your past expenses are the best predictor of future expenses, so filter out the one-time legal and medical costs and use those to predict. Second, for investing there is a simple route to get into the stock market, and hopefully you will hear it a lot: Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). You'll hear \"\"The S&P 500 increased by 80 points today...\"\" on the news; the S&P is a combination of 500 different stocks and is used to gauge the market overall. You can buy an exchange traded fund as a stock, and it's an investment in all those components. There's an ETF for almost anything, but the most popular ones are for those big indexes. I would suggest putting a few hundred thousand into an S&P 500 indexed ETF (do it at maybe $10,000 per month, so you spread the money out and ensure you don't buy at a market peak), and then let it sit there for many years. You can buy stocks through online brokerages like Scottrade or ETrade, and they make it fairly easy - they even have local offices that you can visit for help. Stocks are the easiest way to invest. Once you've done this, you can also open a IRA (a type of retirement account with special tax benefits) and contribute several thousand dollars to it per year. I'll be happy to give more advice if/when you need it, but there are a number of good books for beginning investors that can explain it better than I. I would suggest that you avoid real estate, especially if you expect to move overseas, as it is significantly more complicated and has maintenance costs and taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "110983", "title": "", "text": "In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK" }, { "docid": "492212", "title": "", "text": "The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work." }, { "docid": "65702", "title": "", "text": "\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"" }, { "docid": "539263", "title": "", "text": "There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund." }, { "docid": "332924", "title": "", "text": "\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \"\"ETF Securities\"\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \"\"ETF Securities\"\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\"" }, { "docid": "328086", "title": "", "text": "There's a few different types of investments you could do. As poolie mentioned, you could split your money between the Vanguard All World ex-US and Vanguard Total Stock Market index. A similar approach would be to invest in the Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. You wouldn't have to track separate fund performances, at the downside of not being able to allocate differential amounts to the US and non-US markets (Vanguard will allocate them by market cap). You could consider investing in country-specific broad market indices like the S&P 500 and FTSE 100. While not as diversified as the world indices, they are more correlated with the country's economic outlook. Other common investing paradigms are investing in companies which have historically paid out high dividends and companies that are under-valued by the market but have good prospects for future growth. This gets in the domain of value investing, which an entire field by itself. Like Andrew mentioned, investing in a mutual fund is hassle-free. However, mutual fees/commissions and taxes can be higher (somewhere in the range 1%-5%) than index funds/ETF expense ratios (typically <0.50%), so they would have to outperform the market by a bit to break-even. There are quite a few good books out there to read up about investing. I'd recommend The Intelligent Investor and Millionaire Teacher to understand the basics of long-term investing, but of course, there are many other equally good books too." }, { "docid": "436904", "title": "", "text": "This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500. So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country. However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals. By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk. Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification. Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment. Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making. For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible. Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee." }, { "docid": "129070", "title": "", "text": "You could use a stock-only ISA and invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs are managed mutual funds that trade on open exchanges in the same manner as stocks. This changes the specific fund options you have open to you, but there are so many ETFs at this point that any sector you want to invest in is almost certainly represented." } ]

[ { "docid": "475170", "title": "", "text": "\"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \"\"mark to market\"\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "207929", "title": "", "text": "I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules." }, { "docid": "586010", "title": "", "text": "The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF." }, { "docid": "272840", "title": "", "text": "Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)" }, { "docid": "459953", "title": "", "text": "As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada." }, { "docid": "102501", "title": "", "text": "Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary." }, { "docid": "112208", "title": "", "text": "You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely." }, { "docid": "419985", "title": "", "text": "There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund)." }, { "docid": "461018", "title": "", "text": "stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice." }, { "docid": "59994", "title": "", "text": "The Japanese stock market offers a wide selection of popular ETFs tracking the various indices and sub-indices of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. See this page from the Japan Exchange Group site for a detailed listing of the ETFs being offered on the Tokyo exchange. As you have suggested, one would expect that Japanese investors would be reluctant to track the local market indices because of the relatively poor performance of the Japanese markets over the last couple of decades. However, this does not appear to be the case. In fact, there seems to be a heavy bias towards Tokyo indices as measured by the NAV/Market Cap of listed ETFs. The main Tokyo indices - the broad TOPIX and the large cap Nikkei - dominate investor choice. The big five ETFs tracking the Nikkei 225 have a total net asset value of 8.5Trillion Yen (72Billion USD), while the big four ETFs tracking the TOPIX have a total net asset value of 8.0Trillion Yen (68Billion USD). Compare this to the small net asset values of those Tokyo listed ETFs tracking the S&P500 or the EURO STOXX 50. For example, the largest S&P500 tracker is the Nikko Asset Management S&P500 ETF with net asset value of just 67Million USD and almost zero liquidity. If I remember my stereotypes correctly, it is the Japanese housewife that controls the household budget and investment decisions, and the Japanese housewife is famously conservative and patriotic with their investment choices. Japanese government bonds have yielded next to nothing for as long as I can remember, yet they remain the first choice amongst housewives. The 1.3% yield on a Nikkei 225 ETF looks positively generous by comparison and so will carry some temptations." }, { "docid": "159076", "title": "", "text": "\"Couple of clarifications to start off: Index funds and ETF's are essentially the same investments. ETF's allow you to trade during the day but also make you reinvest your dividends manually instead of doing it for you. Compare VTI and VTSAX, for example. Basically the same returns with very slight differences in how they are run. Because they are so similar it doesn't matter which you choose. Either index funds and ETF's can be purchased through a regular taxable brokerage account or through an IRA or Roth IRA. The decision of what fund to use and whether to use a brokerage or IRA are separate. Whole market index funds will get you exposure to US equity but consider also diversifying into international equity, bonds, real estate (REITS), and emerging markets. Any broker can give you advice on that score or you can get free advice from, for example, Future Advisor. Now the advice: For most people in your situation, you current tax rate is currently very low. This makes a Roth IRA a very reasonable idea. You can contribute $5,500 for 2015 if you do it before April 15 and you can contribute $5,500 for 2016. Repeat each year. You won't be able to get all your money into a Roth, but anything you can do now will save you money on taxes in the long run. You put after-tax money in a Roth IRA and then you don't pay taxes on it or the gains when you take it out. You can use Roth IRA funds for college, for a first home, or for retirement. A traditional IRA is not recommended in your case. That would save you money on taxes this year, when presumably your taxes are already low. Since you won't be able to put all your money in the IRA, you can put the rest in a regular taxable brokerage account (if you don't just want to put it in a savings account). You can buy the same types of things as you have in your IRA. Note that if your stocks (in your regular brokerage account) go up over the course of a year and your income is low enough to be in the 10 or 15% tax bracket and you have held the stock for at least a year, you should sell before the end of the year to lock in your gains and pay taxes on them at the capital gains rate of 0%. This will prevent you from paying a higher rate on those gains later. Conversely, if you lose money in a year, don't sell. You can sell and lock in losses during years when your taxes are high (presumably, after college) to reduce your tax burden in those years (this is called \"\"tax loss harvesting\"\"). Sounds like crazy contortions but the name of the game is (legally) avoiding taxes. This is at least as important to your overall wealth as the decision of which funds to buy. Ok now the financial advisor. It's up to you. You can make your own financial decisions and save the money but it requires you putting in the effort to be educated. For many of us, this education is fun. Also consider that if you use a regular broker, like Fidelity, you can call up and they have people who (for free) will give you advice very similar to what you will get from the advisor you referred to. High priced financial advisors make more sense when you have a lot of money and complicated finances. Based on your question, you don't strike me as having those. To me, 1% sounds like a lot to pay for a simple situation like yours.\"" }, { "docid": "261902", "title": "", "text": "\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"" }, { "docid": "499827", "title": "", "text": "The other alternative: just invest it in tax-efficient investments. You will have limited tax-deferral options outside of your 401k, but don't let that limit you. You can invest in a variety of ETFs, stocks and mutual funds for growth, and tax-free investments like municipal bonds as you get older and need to draw income." }, { "docid": "7712", "title": "", "text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money." }, { "docid": "492212", "title": "", "text": "The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work." }, { "docid": "113786", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea \"\"you can't beat the market.\"\" Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: \"\"the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value\"\". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically: As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns. Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of \"\"SPY\"\" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation. That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets. A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the \"\"fundamental analysis\"\" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed. Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders. The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading. Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't.\"" }, { "docid": "350082", "title": "", "text": "I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment. First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment. Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA. Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks. Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF. To get you started here are five: mREITs Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free. Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return." }, { "docid": "407571", "title": "", "text": "\"Okay. An ETF is an \"\"Exchange Traded Fund\"\". It trades like a stock, on the stock market. Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy. It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies. There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc. REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate.\"" }, { "docid": "276983", "title": "", "text": "You haven't looked very far if you didn't find index tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There are at least a half dozen major exchange-traded fund families that I'm aware of, including Canadian-listed offerings from some of the larger ETF providers from the U.S. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) maintains a list of ETF providers that have products listed on the TSX." }, { "docid": "343708", "title": "", "text": "\"The US withholding tax applies to stocks/ETFs purchased on the NYSE and other US-based exchanges. If you buy Cenovus on the TSE then you will not be charged this tax. Your last sentence seems like you might be misunderstanding this tax though. If the tax applied, it would not cost you 15% on all your profits, it only applies to dividend yields. So if it pays you a 5% dividend, the tax costs you 0.75%. However, if you buy at $21.19 and sell at $26, then your capital gain is not subject to withholding taxes. It is however, subject to Canadian income tax (at 50% of the gain amount) when it's not sheltered in a TFSA or other registered account. The tax on the gains could easily amount to 16% of your profits, which is a much more significant cost. Therefore, having to pay a 0.75% withholding cost certainly does not \"\"defeat the purpose of the TFSA\"\" which is to shelter from Canadian income tax!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "321114", "title": "", "text": "If you receive dividends on an investment, those are taxed." } ]

[ { "docid": "158934", "title": "", "text": "A DRIP plan with the ETF does just that. It provides cash (the dividends you are paid) back to the fund manager who will accumulate all such reinvested dividends and proportionally buy more shares of stock in the ETF. Most ETFs will not do this without your approval, as the dividends are taxed to you (you must include them as income for that year if this is in a taxable account) and therefore you should have the say on where the dividends go." }, { "docid": "418150", "title": "", "text": "If a stock that makes up a big part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average decided to issue a huge number of additional shares, that will make the index go up. At least this is what should happen, since an index is basically a sum of the market cap of the contributing companies. No, indices can have various weightings. The DJIA is a price-weighted index not market-cap weighted. An alternative weighting besides market-cap and price is equal weighting. From Dow Jones: Dow Jones Industrial Average™. Introduced in May 1896, the index, also referred to as The Dow®, is a price-weighted measure of 30 U.S. blue-chip companies. Thus, I can wonder what in the new shares makes the index go up? If a stock is split, the Dow divisor is adjusted as one could easily see how the current Dow value isn't equal to the sum or the share prices of the members of the index. In other cases, there may be a dilution of earnings but that doesn't necessarily affect the stock price directly as there may be options exercised or secondary offerings made. SO if the index, goes up, will the ETF DIA also go up automatically although no additional buying has happened in the ETF itself? If the index rises and the ETF doesn't proportionally, then there is an arbitrage opportunity for someone to buy the DIA shares that can be redeemed for the underlying stocks that are worth more in this case. Look at the Creation and Redemption Unit process that exists for ETFs." }, { "docid": "576890", "title": "", "text": "I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available. This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert. The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy)." }, { "docid": "159076", "title": "", "text": "\"Couple of clarifications to start off: Index funds and ETF's are essentially the same investments. ETF's allow you to trade during the day but also make you reinvest your dividends manually instead of doing it for you. Compare VTI and VTSAX, for example. Basically the same returns with very slight differences in how they are run. Because they are so similar it doesn't matter which you choose. Either index funds and ETF's can be purchased through a regular taxable brokerage account or through an IRA or Roth IRA. The decision of what fund to use and whether to use a brokerage or IRA are separate. Whole market index funds will get you exposure to US equity but consider also diversifying into international equity, bonds, real estate (REITS), and emerging markets. Any broker can give you advice on that score or you can get free advice from, for example, Future Advisor. Now the advice: For most people in your situation, you current tax rate is currently very low. This makes a Roth IRA a very reasonable idea. You can contribute $5,500 for 2015 if you do it before April 15 and you can contribute $5,500 for 2016. Repeat each year. You won't be able to get all your money into a Roth, but anything you can do now will save you money on taxes in the long run. You put after-tax money in a Roth IRA and then you don't pay taxes on it or the gains when you take it out. You can use Roth IRA funds for college, for a first home, or for retirement. A traditional IRA is not recommended in your case. That would save you money on taxes this year, when presumably your taxes are already low. Since you won't be able to put all your money in the IRA, you can put the rest in a regular taxable brokerage account (if you don't just want to put it in a savings account). You can buy the same types of things as you have in your IRA. Note that if your stocks (in your regular brokerage account) go up over the course of a year and your income is low enough to be in the 10 or 15% tax bracket and you have held the stock for at least a year, you should sell before the end of the year to lock in your gains and pay taxes on them at the capital gains rate of 0%. This will prevent you from paying a higher rate on those gains later. Conversely, if you lose money in a year, don't sell. You can sell and lock in losses during years when your taxes are high (presumably, after college) to reduce your tax burden in those years (this is called \"\"tax loss harvesting\"\"). Sounds like crazy contortions but the name of the game is (legally) avoiding taxes. This is at least as important to your overall wealth as the decision of which funds to buy. Ok now the financial advisor. It's up to you. You can make your own financial decisions and save the money but it requires you putting in the effort to be educated. For many of us, this education is fun. Also consider that if you use a regular broker, like Fidelity, you can call up and they have people who (for free) will give you advice very similar to what you will get from the advisor you referred to. High priced financial advisors make more sense when you have a lot of money and complicated finances. Based on your question, you don't strike me as having those. To me, 1% sounds like a lot to pay for a simple situation like yours.\"" }, { "docid": "358997", "title": "", "text": "What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though." }, { "docid": "427842", "title": "", "text": "There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account." }, { "docid": "287950", "title": "", "text": "The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now." }, { "docid": "65702", "title": "", "text": "\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"" }, { "docid": "190687", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"" }, { "docid": "454224", "title": "", "text": "A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker." }, { "docid": "533477", "title": "", "text": "Does the price only start the day based on the previous day's rebalancing? No, the tracker will open at the price according to the stock it is tracking. So for example, if the ETF closed at $10 but the tracked stock continued trading and was priced $15 when the ETF reopened the ETF will open at $15. (Example is for a non-leveraged ETF.)" }, { "docid": "140989", "title": "", "text": "\"I frequently advise to go 401(k) up to the match. With no match, I'm not so sure. If you are in the 15% bracket, I'd skip the 401(k). Your standard deduction is $5800 this year, do you itemize? I ask because the 15% bracket ends at $34,500, and I don't know if you manage enough deductions to get under that. But - I'd only pt into the 401(k) what would otherwise be taxed at 25%, no more. Even then only if the 401(k) expenses were pretty reasonable. Will all the hoopla over retirement accounts, we easily forget the beauty of the investment in ETFs long term. You buy the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) and hold it forever. The gains are all deferred until you sell, and then they have a favored rate. You control the timing of the sale with no risk of penalty. The expenses are low, and over time, can make up for the lack of tax deduction (The pretax deposit) vs the 401(k) account. You die and the beneficiaries have a stepped up basis with no tax due (under whatever the limit is that year). Long term, I'd go with low cost ETFs and pay the mortgage at the minimum payments. Even without itemizing, 4.2% is pretty low compared to the expected return over the next decade in stocks. I recommend a look at Fairmark to help understand your marginal rate. Your gross doesn't matter as much as that line on 1040 \"\"taxable income.\"\" This will tell you if you are in the 25% bracket and if so, how deep. Edit - If one's taxable income, line 43 on your 1040, I believe, puts him into the 15% bracket, there are issues using a pretax 401(k). The priority should be to use a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). Being so close to that 25% bracket at 26 tells me you will grow, and/o marry into it over time, that's the ideal time to use the pre-tax 401(k) to stay at 15%. i.e. deposit just enough to bring your taxable income right to that line of 15/25%.\"" }, { "docid": "59994", "title": "", "text": "The Japanese stock market offers a wide selection of popular ETFs tracking the various indices and sub-indices of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. See this page from the Japan Exchange Group site for a detailed listing of the ETFs being offered on the Tokyo exchange. As you have suggested, one would expect that Japanese investors would be reluctant to track the local market indices because of the relatively poor performance of the Japanese markets over the last couple of decades. However, this does not appear to be the case. In fact, there seems to be a heavy bias towards Tokyo indices as measured by the NAV/Market Cap of listed ETFs. The main Tokyo indices - the broad TOPIX and the large cap Nikkei - dominate investor choice. The big five ETFs tracking the Nikkei 225 have a total net asset value of 8.5Trillion Yen (72Billion USD), while the big four ETFs tracking the TOPIX have a total net asset value of 8.0Trillion Yen (68Billion USD). Compare this to the small net asset values of those Tokyo listed ETFs tracking the S&P500 or the EURO STOXX 50. For example, the largest S&P500 tracker is the Nikko Asset Management S&P500 ETF with net asset value of just 67Million USD and almost zero liquidity. If I remember my stereotypes correctly, it is the Japanese housewife that controls the household budget and investment decisions, and the Japanese housewife is famously conservative and patriotic with their investment choices. Japanese government bonds have yielded next to nothing for as long as I can remember, yet they remain the first choice amongst housewives. The 1.3% yield on a Nikkei 225 ETF looks positively generous by comparison and so will carry some temptations." }, { "docid": "119819", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"" }, { "docid": "353337", "title": "", "text": "\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \"\"advisor\"\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \"\"capital gains\"\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \"\"expense ratio\"\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\"" }, { "docid": "295993", "title": "", "text": "ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information." }, { "docid": "311192", "title": "", "text": "\"Bit hesitant to put this in an answer as I don't know if specific investment advice is appropriate, but this has grown way too long for a comment. The typical answer given for people who don't have the time, experience, knowledge or inclination to pick specific stocks to hold should instead invest in ETFs (exchange-traded index funds.) What these basically do is attempt to simulate a particular market or stock exchange. An S&P 500 index fund will (generally) attempt to hold shares in the stocks that make up that index. They only have to follow an index, not try to beat it so are called \"\"passively\"\" managed. They have very low expense ratios (far below 1%) and are considered a good choice for investors who want to hold stock without significant effort or expense and who's main goal is time in the market. It's a contentious topic but on average an index (and therefore an index fund) will go even with or outperform most actively managed funds. With a sufficiently long investment horizon, which you have, these may be ideal for you. Trading in ETFs is also typically cheap because they are traded like stock. There are plenty of low-fee online brokers and virtually all will allow trading in ETFs. My broker even has a list of several hundred popular ETFs that can be traded for free. The golden rule in investing is that you should never buy into something you don't understand. Don't buy individual stock with little information: it's often little more than gambling. The same goes for trading platforms like Loyal3. Don't use them unless you know their business model and what they stand to gain from your custom. As mentioned I can trade certain funds for free with my broker, but I know why they can offer that and how they're still making money.\"" }, { "docid": "321637", "title": "", "text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"" }, { "docid": "419985", "title": "", "text": "There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund)." } ]

[ { "docid": "465313", "title": "", "text": "I think the answer you are looking for is: You are not taxed on the original basis (purchase cost) of your investment. If you pay $30 a share, and sell at $35, the $5 per share gain is taxable at time of sale. But the $30 basis cost doesn't enter into tax calculations at all. (So it's important to keep good records on your investments and how much you paid for them at purchase.)" } ]

[ { "docid": "351896", "title": "", "text": "The tax consequence is that if you wait until January of 2011 to invest, you won't have the option to sell as a long-term capital gain in 2011. However, this is not a huge point in practice: If your income this year was very low, but will go up in 2011, you might want to convert some or all of it into a roth ira this year. This would let you pay the tax on it at your low tax rate for this year, rather than at the likely higher rate when you retire. An investment consequence is the fact that your money is sitting there, earning a lower expected rate of return than it could be. Not knowing your situation, I can't say how aggressive your holdings will be. Taking a fairly aggressive portfolio, 9% expected yearly return, and not investing for a month, you lose about .75% on average. Not huge, but something to consider. Remember that any decision you make here isn't permanent. If your previous allocation in the 401(k) was 100% in stock funds, you could put it in something like VTI, Vanguard's total US stock market ETF." }, { "docid": "304023", "title": "", "text": "\"ETF Creation and Redemption Process notes the process: While ETF trading occurs on an exchange like stocks, the process by which their shares are created is significantly different. Unless a company decides to issue more shares, the supply of shares of an individual stock trading in the marketplace is finite. When demand increases for shares of an ETF, however, Authorized Participants (APs) have the ability to create additional shares on demand. Through an \"\"in kind\"\" transfer mechanism, APs create ETF units in the primary market by delivering a basket of securities to the fund equal to the current holdings of the ETF. In return, they receive a large block of ETF shares (typically 50,000), which are then available for trading in the secondary market. This ETF creation and redemption process helps keep ETF supply and demand in continual balance and provides a \"\"hidden\"\" layer of liquidity not evident by looking at trading volumes alone. This process also works in reverse. If an investor wants to sell a large block of shares of an ETF, even if there seems to be limited liquidity in the secondary market, APs can readily redeem a block of ETF shares by gathering enough shares of the ETF to form a creation unit and then exchanging the creation unit for the underlying securities. Thus, the in-kind swap to the underlying securities is only done by APs so the outflow would be these individuals taking a large block of the ETF and swapping it for the underlying securities. The APs would be taking advantage of the difference between what the ETF's trading value and the value of the underlying securities.\"" }, { "docid": "468851", "title": "", "text": "Cornerstone Strategic Value Fund, Inc. is a diversified, closed-end management investment company. It was incorporated in Maryland on May 1, 1987 and commenced investment operations on June 30, 1987. The Fund’s shares of Common Stock are traded on the NYSE MKT under the ticker symbol “CLM.”[1] That essentially means that CLM is a company all of whose assets are held as tradable financial instruments OR EQUIVALENTLY CLM is an ETF that was created as a company in its own right. That it was founded in the 80s, before the modern definition of ETFs really existed, it is probably more helpful to think of it by the first definition as the website mentions that it is traded as common stock so its stock holds more in common with stock than ETFs. [1] http://www.cornerstonestrategicvaluefund.com/" }, { "docid": "49168", "title": "", "text": "The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)" }, { "docid": "110343", "title": "", "text": "A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund)." }, { "docid": "506448", "title": "", "text": "I believe the answer to your question boils down to a discussion of tax strategies and personal situation, both now and in the future. As a result, it's pretty hard to give a concrete example to the question as asked right now. For example, if your tax rate now is likely to be higher than your tax rate at retirement (it is for most people), than putting the higher growth ETF in a retirement fund makes some sense. But even then, there are other considerations. However, if the opposite is true (which could happen if your income is growing so fast that your retirement income looks like it will be higher than your current income), than you might want the flexibility of holding all your ETFs in your non-tax advantaged brokerage account so that IF you do incur capital gains they are paid at prevailing, presumably lower tax rates. (I assume you meant a brokerage account rather than a savings account since you usually can't hold ETFs in a savings account.) I also want to mention that a holding in a corp account isn't necessarily taxed twice. It depends on the corporation type and the type of distribution. For example, S corps pay no federal income tax themselves. Instead the owners pay taxes when money is distributed to them as personal income. Which means you could trickle out the earnings from an holdings there such that it keeps you under any given federal tax bracket (assuming it's your only personal income.) This might come in handy when retired for example. Also, distribution of the holdings as dividends would incur cap gains tax rates rather than personal income tax rates. One thing I would definitely say: any holdings in a Roth account (IRA, 401k) will have no future taxes on earnings or distributions (unless the gov't changes its mind.) Thus, putting your highest total return ETF there would always be the right move." }, { "docid": "436904", "title": "", "text": "This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500. So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country. However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals. By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk. Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification. Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment. Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making. For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible. Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee." }, { "docid": "102501", "title": "", "text": "Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary." }, { "docid": "7712", "title": "", "text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money." }, { "docid": "211525", "title": "", "text": "First, a Roth is funded with post tax money. The Roth IRA deposit will not offset any tax obligation you might have. The IRA is not an investment, it's an account with a specific set of tax rules that apply to it. If you don't have a brokerage account, I'd suggest you consider a broker that has an office nearby. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard are 3 that I happen to have relationships with. Once the funds are deposited, you need to choose how to invest for the long term. The fact that I'd choose the lowest cost S&P ETF or mutual fund doesn't mean that's the ideal investment for you. You need to continue to do research to find the exact investment that matches your risk profile. By way of example, up until a few years ago, my wife and I were nearly 100% invested in stocks, mostly the S&P 500. When we retired, four years ago, I shifted a bit to be more conservative, closer to 80% stock 20% cash." }, { "docid": "533477", "title": "", "text": "Does the price only start the day based on the previous day's rebalancing? No, the tracker will open at the price according to the stock it is tracking. So for example, if the ETF closed at $10 but the tracked stock continued trading and was priced $15 when the ETF reopened the ETF will open at $15. (Example is for a non-leveraged ETF.)" }, { "docid": "158934", "title": "", "text": "A DRIP plan with the ETF does just that. It provides cash (the dividends you are paid) back to the fund manager who will accumulate all such reinvested dividends and proportionally buy more shares of stock in the ETF. Most ETFs will not do this without your approval, as the dividends are taxed to you (you must include them as income for that year if this is in a taxable account) and therefore you should have the say on where the dividends go." }, { "docid": "59994", "title": "", "text": "The Japanese stock market offers a wide selection of popular ETFs tracking the various indices and sub-indices of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. See this page from the Japan Exchange Group site for a detailed listing of the ETFs being offered on the Tokyo exchange. As you have suggested, one would expect that Japanese investors would be reluctant to track the local market indices because of the relatively poor performance of the Japanese markets over the last couple of decades. However, this does not appear to be the case. In fact, there seems to be a heavy bias towards Tokyo indices as measured by the NAV/Market Cap of listed ETFs. The main Tokyo indices - the broad TOPIX and the large cap Nikkei - dominate investor choice. The big five ETFs tracking the Nikkei 225 have a total net asset value of 8.5Trillion Yen (72Billion USD), while the big four ETFs tracking the TOPIX have a total net asset value of 8.0Trillion Yen (68Billion USD). Compare this to the small net asset values of those Tokyo listed ETFs tracking the S&P500 or the EURO STOXX 50. For example, the largest S&P500 tracker is the Nikko Asset Management S&P500 ETF with net asset value of just 67Million USD and almost zero liquidity. If I remember my stereotypes correctly, it is the Japanese housewife that controls the household budget and investment decisions, and the Japanese housewife is famously conservative and patriotic with their investment choices. Japanese government bonds have yielded next to nothing for as long as I can remember, yet they remain the first choice amongst housewives. The 1.3% yield on a Nikkei 225 ETF looks positively generous by comparison and so will carry some temptations." }, { "docid": "353337", "title": "", "text": "\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \"\"advisor\"\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \"\"capital gains\"\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \"\"expense ratio\"\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\"" }, { "docid": "321637", "title": "", "text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"" }, { "docid": "260305", "title": "", "text": "An ETF consists of two componenets : stocks and weightage of each stock. Assuming the ETF tracks the average of the 5 stock prices you bought and equal weightage was given to each stock , an increase in 20% in any one of the five stocks will cause the price of the ETF to increase by 4% also This does not take into consideration tracking error && tracking difference , fund expense ratio which may affect the returns of the ETF also" }, { "docid": "479420", "title": "", "text": "Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X." }, { "docid": "467575", "title": "", "text": "There are ETFs and mutual funds that pay dividends. Mutual funds and ETFs are quite similar. Your advisor is correct regarding future funds you invest. But you already had incurred the risk of buying an individual stock. That is a 'sunk cost'. If you were satisfied with the returns you could have retained the HD stock you already owned and just put future moneys into an ETF or mutual fund. BTW: does your advisor receive a commission from your purchase of a mutual fund? That may have been his motivation to give you the advice to sell your existing holdings." }, { "docid": "529638", "title": "", "text": "\"The recommendations you read were, very probably, talking about US listed funds in US dollars. The mexican Bolsa de Valores says that they list over 600 mutual funds so \"\"Yes\"\" you can invest in Mexico using Pesos if that is what you want. You need a Corredor de Bolsa or mexico broker. Here they are. Most international investors use exchange traded funds ETF because theirs fees are cheaper than mutual funds. The ETF are mostly listed and traded in us stock exchange. Here they are. US mutual funds are in dollars and, because you are living in Mexico, you will have a currency risk and probably taxes. Mexico mutual funds in Pesos do not carry any currency exposure unless the companies involved do business in the United States. You have to think about your currency exposure. B. Veo\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "415511", "title": "", "text": "Dividends. There are blue chip companies that have paid and raised their dividends for 20 or more years. As an example: Altria (MO). There are also ETFs that specialize in such stocks such as SDY." } ]

[ { "docid": "582553", "title": "", "text": "Very rarely would an investor be happy with a 4% yield independent of anything else that might happen in the future. For example, if in 3 years for some reason or other inflation explodes and 30 year bond yields go up to 15% across the board, they would be kicking themselves for having locked it up for 30 years at 4%. However, if instead of doing that the investor put their money in a 3 year bond at 3% say, they would have the opportunity to reinvest in the new rate environment, which might offer higher or lower yields. This eventually leads fixed income investors to have a bond portfolio in which they manage the average maturity of their bond portfolio to be somewhere between the two extremes of investing it all in super short term/ low yield money market rates vs. super long term bonds. As they constantly monitor and manage their maturing investments, it inevitably leads them to managing interest rate risk as they decide where to reinvest their incremental coupons by looking at the shape of the yield curve at the time and determining what kind of risk/reward tradeoffs they would have to make." }, { "docid": "137225", "title": "", "text": "I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform." }, { "docid": "507871", "title": "", "text": "PSB taxed at higher rates. PSB is taxed at 39.5% in Ontario, as the article mentioned. But if you pay all the net income to yourself as salary, you expense it and zero it out on the corporate level. So who cares what tax rate it is if the taxable income is zero? No-one. Same goes for the US, by the way. Personal Service Corporations are taxed at flat 35% Federal tax rate. But if you pour all the income into your salary - its moot, because there's no net income to pay tax of. If it's too complicated to figure out, maybe it would be wise to hire a tax accountant to provide counsel to you before you make decisions about your business." }, { "docid": "302306", "title": "", "text": "It's tough to avoid the discussion of taxes. Matthew's answer was excellent but of course, tax was part of the discussion. In an article I wrote a while back, The 15% solution, I described how one can optimize taxes paid by using Roth (401 or IRA) while at a marginal 15%, and carefully transition to pretax to avoid the 25% bracket. It's possible to effectively save money from a 25% rate and withdraw it at 0%. (Zero is what one pays for the first $20K of a couple's income, this is the combined standard deduction and personal exemptions.) It would take $500K at retirement to produce the $20,000 withdrawal at a 4% rate. Keep in mind, this is a moving target as the numbers edge up each year. With no match, I'd consider the Roth IRA. But I also agree, paying higher interest debt first is a wise priority." }, { "docid": "147437", "title": "", "text": "There many car loans at zero percent interest. Finance the car at zero percent, then take your money and invest it. If you want to be super safe buy a CD the same length as the car loan. 5 years you will get 2%. If you still want safety and a better return take up a asset allocation strategy that moves your cash to risky assets when the market is performing well, then to cash, bonds, or cds when the market under-performs. Now you have your car with a zero percent loan and you are making the return on the money instead of the car company." }, { "docid": "131959", "title": "", "text": "\"Alternative Minimum Tax is based not just on your income, but moreso on the deductions you use. In short, if you have above the minimum AMT threshold of income (54k per your link), and pay a tiny amount of tax, you will pay AMT. AMT is used as an overall protection for the government to say \"\"okay, you can use these deductions from your taxable income, but if you're making a lot of money, you should pay something, no matter what your deductions are\"\". This extra AMT can be used to reduce your tax payment in a future year, if you pay regular tax again. For example - if you have 60k in income, but have 60k in specific deductions from your income, you will pay zero regular tax [because your taxable income will be zero]. AMT would require you to pay some tax on your income above the minimum 54k threshold, which might work out to a few thousand bucks. Next year, if you have 60k in income, but only 15k in deductions, then you would pay some regular tax, and would be able to offset that regular tax by claiming a credit from your AMT already paid. AMT is really a pre-payment of tax paid in years when you have a lot of deductions. Unless you have a lot of deductions every single year, in which case you might not be able to get all of your AMT refunded in the end. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of AMT in the US, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax. If you think AMT is unfair (and maybe in some cases you might pay it when you think it's \"\"unfair\"\"), look at the root causes of paying AMT listed in that Wikipedia article: I am not trying to convince you that AMT is fair, just that it applies only when someone already has a very low tax rate due to deductions. If you have straight salary income, it would only apply in rare scenarios.\"" }, { "docid": "253907", "title": "", "text": "Zero positive feedback (except my performance review), cold attitude (friendly with others), regularly does not invite me, and only me, to meetings that affect me, etc. Outside of work, makes it really uncomfortable to talk to him, but is great to everyone else. It seems more personal than professional, and he just comes off as cold to only myself. I really just want to bring this up to make work more pleasant; it's not really a 'hostile work environment'." }, { "docid": "357717", "title": "", "text": "\"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question \"\"Where is the value of the company coming from?\"\" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as \"\"Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses\"\" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of \"\"Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)\"\", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: \"\"How much is the company worth at this moment?\"\", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called \"\"Equity\"\", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called \"\"Starting Equity\"\", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named \"\"Equity\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "452837", "title": "", "text": "\"My grandma left a 50K inheritance You don't make clear where in the inheritance process you are. I actually know of one case where the executor (a family member, not a professional) distributed the inheritance before paying the estate taxes. Long story short, the heirs had to pay back part of the inheritance. So the first thing that I would do is verify that the estate is closed and all the taxes paid. If the executor is a professional, just call and ask. If a family member, you may want to approach it more obliquely. Or not. The important thing is not to start spending that money until you're sure that you have it. One good thing is that my husband is in grad school and will be done in 2019 and will then make about 75K/yr with his degree profession. Be a bit careful about relying on this. Outside the student loans, you should build other expenses around the assumption that he won't find a job immediately after grad school. For example, we could be in a recession in 2019. We'll be about due by then. Paying off the $5k \"\"other debt\"\" is probably a no brainer. Chances are that you're paying double-digit interest. Just kill it. Unless the car loan is zero-interest, you probably want to get rid of that loan too. I would tend to agree that the car seems expensive for your income, but I'm not sure that the amount that you could recover by selling it justifies the loss of value. Hopefully it's in good shape and will last for years without significant maintenance. Consider putting $2k (your monthly income) in your checking account. Instead of paying for things paycheck-to-paycheck, this should allow you to buy things on schedule, without having to wait for the money to appear in your account. Put the remainder into an emergency account. Set aside $12k (50% of your annual income/expenses) for real emergencies like a medical emergency or job loss. The other $16k you can use the same way you use the $5k other debt borrowing now, for small emergencies. E.g. a car repair. Make a budget and stick to it. The elimination of the car loan should free up enough monthly income to support a reasonable budget. If it seems like it isn't, then you are spending too much money for your income. Don't forget to explicitly budget for entertainment and vacations. It's easy to overspend there. If you don't make a budget, you'll just find yourself back to your paycheck-to-paycheck existence. That sounds like it is frustrating for you. Budget so that you know how much money you really need to live.\"" }, { "docid": "488622", "title": "", "text": "edit: nevermind. i glanced and thought you meant total market mutual funds. For fixed income - if you want to get a good analysis of the bond market/interest rates, i would suggest you read some of bill gross' letters off the pimco site - a lot of discussion about our current zero bound interest rates. For equities - I have the view that if the economy is doing well, people are less inclined to focus on dividend yield...thereby lowering the relative multiples on dividend/fcf yielding stocks. So total return fund may be trading slightly cheaper." }, { "docid": "570960", "title": "", "text": "That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry." }, { "docid": "141565", "title": "", "text": "\"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, \"\"otherwiseyep\"\", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial \"\"root demand\"\" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just *decide* that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a \"\"credit event\"\" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle. If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates. This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on. Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain. In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks. So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies. Real money has ZERO counterparty risk. What is counterparty risk? It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt. Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's. So they can be real money.\"" }, { "docid": "84310", "title": "", "text": "After that I moved to the Middle East on March 23rd, 2015 As an NRI, one should not hold any Savings account. Please have this converted to NRO Account. Additionally it is advised that you open an NRE account. Both these can be done remotely. If I transfer money from here to a non NRE/NRO account then is it taxable? Assuming its income earned when you are NRI, it is not taxable. However if there is audit enquiry you would need to have sufficient proof to back that this income is earned during your period as NRI and hence not taxable. As indicate above, holding a savings account when you are NRI is a breach of FEMA regulation. I have been getting mail from myITreturns.com to file income tax returns. Since I am considered as NRI, do I have to fill any non return form online? If there is a source of income in India, interest on savings account etc, it is taxable and you would need to file appropriate returns. Even if you have zero income, it is safe to file a NIL return. For the year 2014 do I have to file income tax returns? For the financial year 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015, you are still a resident Indian for tax purposes. You should have filed the return by June 2015 if there was tax due, else by March 2016. If you have not done so, please do this ASAP and regularise it." }, { "docid": "235004", "title": "", "text": "Every economy wants growth and for growth to come you need investments. So, you must provide some motive for people to risk their money (every investment has inherently a degree of risk or if you want uncertainty about the outcome). As a result the tax on capital gains is lower than on other types of income (because the risk is almost zero). The tax is considered in the calculation of the net interest rate. And you can see this as the interest which the investors demand in order to invest their money." }, { "docid": "107520", "title": "", "text": "Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)" }, { "docid": "71861", "title": "", "text": "Certainly, yes, a zero coupon bond can go down in price. If interest rates rise before your bond matures, the price of the bond will go down – and the longer to maturity, the more it will tend to drop. Depending on when you bought and how much interest rates rise, you can incur a capital loss. The bond is guaranteed to be worth a certain amount at maturity as long as the issuer hasn't defaulted, but before maturity the market price of the bond will fluctuate, primarily based on interest rate movements. In fact, zero coupon bonds are even more interest-rate-sensitive than regular bonds (which have periodic coupon interest payments.)" }, { "docid": "488470", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't say it's an 'Office' collaboration tool. When I (briefly) played around with it in an organisation it was mainly for internal social, think along the lines of a corporate Facebook with discussion threads, interest groups and general banter. For a large organisation, it certainly has a place in helping breaking down department walls, encouraging employee discussion on interests/business issues in a a slightly more formal environment cf. Twitter/Facebook." }, { "docid": "122114", "title": "", "text": "\"Good question. And it depends a bit on your current plan, your future income, and the plan you are moving too. Mostly you want to roll out of your existing 401K. There will likely be a fee, and your investment choices are limited. You will want to do a direct transfer, and going with a quality company such as Fidelity or Vanguard. Both of those have zero fees for accounts and pretty good customer service. However, if your future income is likely to be high there is something else to consider. If you are over the limits do a ROTH, and are considering doing a \"\"Backdoor ROTH\"\" a key success for this strategy is keeping your roll over IRA balance low (or zero). So you may want to either leave the 401K where it is, or roll it to your new 401K plan. In that case you will have to call the two 401K custodians, and select the best choice as far as fees and fund choice.\"" }, { "docid": "361507", "title": "", "text": "The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election." } ]

[ { "docid": "376709", "title": "", "text": "\"anything that produces steady income will produce a \"\"real return\"\" (return above inflation) in a zero-interest rate environment: Note, however, that all of these will decline in value if interest rates rise.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "235004", "title": "", "text": "Every economy wants growth and for growth to come you need investments. So, you must provide some motive for people to risk their money (every investment has inherently a degree of risk or if you want uncertainty about the outcome). As a result the tax on capital gains is lower than on other types of income (because the risk is almost zero). The tax is considered in the calculation of the net interest rate. And you can see this as the interest which the investors demand in order to invest their money." }, { "docid": "127074", "title": "", "text": "In today's low interest environment capital is cheap and relatively easy to come by. If a business has an idea for expansion it should be easy enough to get a business loan and have enough ROI that the interest is not a huge cost. There are many more ways to pay for business growth than cutting taxes" }, { "docid": "510883", "title": "", "text": "Schwab suggests investors do the following in the face of tighter monetary policy in the near term: &gt; * Consider limiting the average duration in their portfolios to the short to intermediate term to mitigate the risk of rising interest rates as the program begins. &gt; * Consider using bond ladders to spread out maturities of bonds in a portfolio, as a way to manage through a rising-interest-rate environment. &gt; * Focus on high-credit-quality bonds, as volatility may pick up as the Fed reduces liquidity." }, { "docid": "595739", "title": "", "text": "\"It's a pretty lengthy explanation but to put it into a few bullet points: * Nuclear power produces zero carbon emissions * They take up the smallest amount of space relative to the energy produced compared to all other forms of power production * Nuclear power can utilize the existing infrastructure and provide ultra reliable, clean energy * Updating to current reactor technology largely reduces the \"\"radioactive waste\"\" problem (see fast breeder tech) * Updating to current reactor technology largely solves safety issues * Moving to next-gen MSRs (Molten-Salt Reactors) introduce a higher efficiency, ultra-safe design, with no risk of \"\"melt-down\"\" or concern about weapons conversions * Some MSRs ([such as a LFTR](https://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Protecting-the-Environment)) show signs of being potentially world changing and making energy ridiculously cheap with no radioactive waste That's a primer to start. :)\"" }, { "docid": "580025", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know Canada very well, but can offer some general points when considering where to park your emergency fund. Savings rates are currently low, but then so is inflation. Always bear in mind that inflation decreases the value of your money, so if you're getting 4% interest and inflation is 2%, you're making 2% gross in real terms. If you're getting 2% and inflation is close to zero, you're actually earning a similar amount, it's just the numbers are going up more slowly. Obviously when and how much tax you pay affects the actual return, it's just worth bearing in mind that low interest and low inflation are actually not that bad a savings environment as they first appear. For an emergency fund the key thing is ease of access, consider keeping some portion of your savings in an instant access account for those emergencies that happen when the banks are closed. In the UK there are various tax-free savings options, I'm guessing Canada has a few too, if so you should explore those options. While these may not have attractive headline rates, you don't pay tax on the interest, this can make them much more competitive (4% tax free is the same as 5% gross if you would have to pay tax at 20%). Normally tax free investments have caps so once you've invested a set amount you can't add anymore. This may be a consideration if you regularly dip into your emergency fund as you might not easily be able to build it up again. My approach is to have about 90% of my \"\"rainy day\"\" fund in easily accessible but tax free savings. This discourages me from spending it unless I really need to. I then keep a slush fund sufficient to cover every day disasters (boiler packing up, needing a hire car for a week etc) in instant access accounts .\"" }, { "docid": "368840", "title": "", "text": "Companies, especially big ones, find in Switzerland a business-friendly environment and often benefit from a special tax regime. Don't mix the companies interests with yours." }, { "docid": "70738", "title": "", "text": "In a business environment, this phenomenon could be easily explained by 'operational leverage'. Operational leverage is the principle that increasing revenues by a small amount can have a disproportionately large impact on net income. Consider this example: you run a business that rents out a factory and produces goods to sell to consumers. The rent costs you $10k / month, and all of your other costs depend on how many goods you produce. Assume each good gives you $10 in profit, after factoring your variable costs. If you sell 1,000 units, you break-even, because your variable profit will pay for your rent. If you sell 1,100 units, you make $1,000 net profit. If you sell 1,200 units, you double your overall profit, making $2,000 for the month. Operational leverage is the principle that adding incremental revenue will have a greater impact than the revenue already received, because your fixed costs are already 'paid for'. Similarly in personal finance, consider these scenarios: You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,000 - your monthly savings (and therefore your wealth) will be zero. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,100 - your monthly savings will be $100 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,200 - increasing your income by ~10% has allowed your monthly savings double, at $200 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $2,000 - your monthly savings are 5 times higher, when your income only increased by ~80%. Now in the real world, when someone makes more money, they will increase their expenses. This is because spending money can increase one's quality of life. So the incline does not happen quite so quickly - as pointed out by @Pete & @quid, there comes a point where increased spending provides someone with less increase in quality of life - at that point, savings really would quickly ramp up as income increases incrementally. But assuming you live the same making $2,000 / month as $1,000 / month, you can save, every month, a full month's worth of living expenses. This doesn't even factor in the impact of earning investment income on those savings. As to why the wealth exceeds income at that specific point, I couldn't say, but what I've outlined above should show how it is quite reasonable that the data is as-reported." }, { "docid": "582553", "title": "", "text": "Very rarely would an investor be happy with a 4% yield independent of anything else that might happen in the future. For example, if in 3 years for some reason or other inflation explodes and 30 year bond yields go up to 15% across the board, they would be kicking themselves for having locked it up for 30 years at 4%. However, if instead of doing that the investor put their money in a 3 year bond at 3% say, they would have the opportunity to reinvest in the new rate environment, which might offer higher or lower yields. This eventually leads fixed income investors to have a bond portfolio in which they manage the average maturity of their bond portfolio to be somewhere between the two extremes of investing it all in super short term/ low yield money market rates vs. super long term bonds. As they constantly monitor and manage their maturing investments, it inevitably leads them to managing interest rate risk as they decide where to reinvest their incremental coupons by looking at the shape of the yield curve at the time and determining what kind of risk/reward tradeoffs they would have to make." }, { "docid": "137225", "title": "", "text": "I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform." }, { "docid": "365847", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not familiar with the law and taxes in India but can provide guidance based on general accounting and tax principles. You are right that receiving money as a loan is not income and isn't liable to income tax. Therefore i suggest you actually formalise this loan through a written contract with your friend. The contract should include all the usual elements of a loan: amount, interest (even if preferential or zero), principal, term, consequences of default and currency of loan. You can then simply state the purpose of transfer as \"\"Personal Loan Agreement\"\". If you have such a document and are questioned by tax authorities you can easily show that the inward remittance is from a loan and should therefore be treated like any commercial loan for tax purposes. As long as you disclose the debt in your tax return (if required in India) and your friend discloses any interest received as income i think you'll be above board and won't be liable for any income tax. To make sure, you might be better off having a quick consultation with an accountant or tax specialist in India to advise you and draft the loan agreement.\"" }, { "docid": "212348", "title": "", "text": "It’s not misleading at all. People making the highest incomes already pay the vast majority of income taxes. Something like 40% of Americans pay zero net federal income tax. These people have ZERO skin in the game and yet they think they should have a seat at the table demanding more! The entitlement is sickening. The current tax regime already soaks the rich. You can play all the mental gymnastics you want, but you can’t change the facts." }, { "docid": "494935", "title": "", "text": "I understand the frustration, American politics is pretty utterly fucked isn't it? &gt; Anyway, I think we should be doing our best to incentivize corporate formation by lowering corporate taxes to zero and moving the incidence of taxation directly to capital. That's interesting, and I've heard it before. Is something [like this writer](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-should-eliminate-the-corporate-income-tax/65351/) outlines what you are thinking? Essentially remove corporate taxes, and then tax dividends and capital gains as normal income?" }, { "docid": "488258", "title": "", "text": "A Lease is an entirely different way of getting a car. In two situations it makes sense, in all other scenarios it generally doesn't make sense to lease. In the case of always wanting a new car every 2 or 3 years it can make sense to lease. Of course if you drive more the allowed miles you will pay extra at the end of the lease. If you can take the monthly lease as a business expense leasing makes sense. Otherwise you want to pay cash, or get financing. Does zero percent make sense? Sometimes. The only way to make sense of the numbers is to start with your bank, have them approve of the loan first. Then armed with the maximum loan amount they will give you and the rate and the length of the loan, then visit the dealer. You have to run the numbers for your situation. It depends on your income, your other expenses, your credit score, your bank, what deal the dealership is running, how much you have for a down payment. Here is an example. For a recent loan situation I saw: 36 months, 1.49% rate, 20K loan, total interest paid: ~$466. Armed with that information can the person get a better deal at the dealership? There was only one way to find out. In that case the credit union was better. The rebate was larger than the interest paid." }, { "docid": "16626", "title": "", "text": "\"Here's a number-crunching example of how the \"\"Zero interest rate\"\" offer is misleading. Suppose the offer is that a car \"\"costs $24,000.00 with zero percent financing over 24 months\"\" or as an alternative, \"\"$3,000.00 off for cash\"\". Ignore the hype: the quoted prices and the quoted interest rates. Look at what really happens to two people who take advantage of the two offers, One person hands over $21,000.00 cash, and leaves with the new car. The second promises to make 24 payments of $1000.00, one a month, starting in one month's time, and also leaves with the same make and model new car. The two people have received exactly the same benefit, so the two payment schemes must have the same value. A mortgage program will tell you that paying off a $21,000.00 loan by making 24 monthly payments of $1000.00 requires an interest rate of 1.10% a month, or an effective annual rate of 14.03%.\"" }, { "docid": "42335", "title": "", "text": "\"You literally just said \"\"Why control prices when we can change incomes?\"\". If you want to change the incomes of everyone working, you have to add money somewhere. The monetary system is not a zero sum game. You don't have a fixed amount of money. The disparity of wealth has nothing to do with actual money. It has to do with real hard assets, which you have a finite amount of and ARE zero sum. I'm done with this pretend discussion as it appears you can't have one or stay on the same topic between comments.\"" }, { "docid": "72510", "title": "", "text": "Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation. Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low. edit: typo" }, { "docid": "302306", "title": "", "text": "It's tough to avoid the discussion of taxes. Matthew's answer was excellent but of course, tax was part of the discussion. In an article I wrote a while back, The 15% solution, I described how one can optimize taxes paid by using Roth (401 or IRA) while at a marginal 15%, and carefully transition to pretax to avoid the 25% bracket. It's possible to effectively save money from a 25% rate and withdraw it at 0%. (Zero is what one pays for the first $20K of a couple's income, this is the combined standard deduction and personal exemptions.) It would take $500K at retirement to produce the $20,000 withdrawal at a 4% rate. Keep in mind, this is a moving target as the numbers edge up each year. With no match, I'd consider the Roth IRA. But I also agree, paying higher interest debt first is a wise priority." }, { "docid": "536098", "title": "", "text": "\"In the course of one's spending, it's not tough to find things that are going to be that expensive. A median income is in the $50K range in the US. The diamond folk advertise that one should spend 3 month's salary on an engagement ring. Even with a decent income, I spent zero. My wife was practical, not interested in jewelry, and wanted a big house. The money went to the downpayment. The house cost 2.5 years salary at that time. A car, even used, will cost some month's salary. If that $50K earner is saving, has an emergency account, and is on track with their financial long term goals, a week's pay can buy a nice sized TV. A nice vacation can cost a week's pay to a month's pay. Your question is great, although it shows a concern that's typical very early on in one's career. There are related question here about \"\"how can I spend more?\"\" They tend to come from someone living on a student budget that now has an adult's income from a desirable job. The answer is to sit down, list your monthly spending, properly budget a decent portion for savings, and see how much you have for frivolous spending. Keep in mind, it's easier to sock it away now. No house, no kids, etc. When we were first married, we lived on my wife's income (in effect) and socked mine away. The house tightened the budget, as did the kid. In the end, the PS4 is less about the $400 than it is about the rest of your finances.\"" }, { "docid": "144775", "title": "", "text": "Dividends yield and yield history are often neglected, but are very important factors that you should consider when looking at a stock for long-term investment. The more conservative portion of my portfolio is loaded up with dividend paying stocks/MLPs like that are yielding 6-11% income. In an environment when deposit and bond yields are so poor, they are a great way to earn reasonably safe income." } ]

[ { "docid": "294867", "title": "", "text": "You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea." } ]

[ { "docid": "281841", "title": "", "text": "\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \"\"basket\"\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \"\"DJI 30\"\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\"" }, { "docid": "250761", "title": "", "text": "\"Stock prices are set by bidding. In principle, a seller will say, \"\"I want $80.\"\" If he can't find anyone willing to buy at that price, he'll either decide not to sell after all, or he'll lower his price. Likewise, a buyer will say, \"\"I'll pay $70.\"\" If he can't find anyone willing to pay that price, he'll either decide not to buy or he'll increase his price. For most stocks there are many buyers and many sellers all the time, so there's a constant interplay. The typical small investor has VERY little control of the price. You say, \"\"I want to buy 10 shares of XYZ Corporation and my maximum price is $20.\"\" If the current trending price is below $20, your broker will buy it for you. If not, he won't. You normally have some time limit on the order, so if the price falls within your range within that time period, your broker will buy. That is, your choice is basically to buy or not buy, or sell or not sell, at the current price. You have little opportunity to really negotiate a better price. If you have a significant percentage of a company's total stock, different story. In real life, most stocks are being traded constantly, so buyers and sellers both have a pretty good idea of the current price. If the last sale was ten minutes ago for $20, it's unlikely anyone's going to now bid $100. They're going to bid $20.50 or $19.25 or some such. If the last sale was for $20 and your broker really came to the floor and offered to buy for $100, I suppose someone would sell to him very quickly before he realized what an outrageous price this was. I use TD Ameritrade, and on their web site, if I give a price limit on a buy that's more than a small percentage above the last sale, they reject it as an error. I forget the exact number but they won't even accept a bid of $80 if the stock is going for $40. They might accept $41 or $42, something like that.\"" }, { "docid": "291600", "title": "", "text": "\"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\"" }, { "docid": "599523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of \"\"what does this mean\"\" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical \"\"what actual variables in the market represent this quantity\"\". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true.\"" }, { "docid": "207316", "title": "", "text": "Just a thought because this is a really good question: Would the buying and selling of blockchain based digital currency, using other blockchain based digital currencies, be subject to like kind treatment and exempt from capital gains until exchanged for a non-blockchain based good or service (or national currency) Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin to buy 100 monero. Monero's price and bitcoin's price then change to where the 100 monero are 3 bitcoins. The person gets their bitcoin back and has 66.67 monero remaining. This scenario could be: Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin at $1000 to buy 100 monero at $10. Bitcoin crashes 80% to $200 while monero crashes to only $6 per monero. $6 times 100 is $600 and if the person gets their bitcoin back (at $200 per bitcoi), they still lost money when measured in US Dollars if they move that bitcoin back to US dollars. In reading the IRS on bitcoin, they only care about the US dollar value of bitcoin or monero and in this example, the US dollar value is less. The person may have more bitcoins, but they still lost money if they sell." }, { "docid": "69790", "title": "", "text": "Anyone who wants to can use any method they want. Ultimately, the price of the stock will settle on the valuation that people tend to agree on. If you think the priced in numbers are too low, buy the stock as that would mean that its price will go up as the future earnings materialize. If you think it's too high, short the stock, as its price will go down as future earnings fail to materialize. The current price represents the price at which just as much pressure pushes the price up as down. That means people agree it's reasonably approximating the expected future value. Imagine if I needed money now and sold at auction whatever salary I make in 2019. How much will I make in 2019? I might be disabled. I might be a high earner. Who knows? But if I auction off those earnings, whatever price it sells for represents everyone's best estimate of that value. But each participant in the auction can estimate that value however they want. If you want to know what something is worth, you see what you can sell it for." }, { "docid": "482919", "title": "", "text": "The strategy could conceivably work if you had sufficient quantity of shares to fill all of the outstanding buy orders and fill your lower buy orders. But in this case you are forcing the market down by selling and reinforcing the notion that there is a sell off by filling ever lower buy orders. There is the potential to trigger some stop loss orders if you can pressure it low enough. There is a lot of risk here that someone sees what you are doing and decides to jump in and buy forcing the price back up. Could this work sure. But it is very risky and if you fail to create the panic selling then you risk losing big. I also suspect that this would violate SEC Rules and several laws. And if the price drops too far then trading on the stock would be halted and is likely to return at the appropriate price. Bottom line I can not see a scenario where you do not trigger the stop, net a profit and end up with as many or more stock that you had in the first place." }, { "docid": "151132", "title": "", "text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"" }, { "docid": "10726", "title": "", "text": "Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank." }, { "docid": "53041", "title": "", "text": "\"A \"\"market maker\"\" is someone that is contractually bound, by the exchange, to provide both bid and ask prices for a given volume (e.g. 5000 shares). A single market maker usually covers many stocks, and a single stock is usually covered by many market makers. The NYSE has \"\"specialists\"\" that are market makers that also performed a few other roles in the management of trading for a stock, and usually a single issue on the NYSE is covered by only one market maker. Market makers are often middlemen between brokers (ignoring stuff like dark pools, and the fact that brokers will often trade stocks internally among their own clients before going to the exchange). Historically, the market makers gave up buy/sell discretion in exchange for being the \"\"go-to guys\"\" for anyone wanting to trade in that stock. When you told your broker to buy a stock for you, he didn't hook you up with another retail investor; he went to the market maker. Market makers would also sometimes find investors willing to step in when more liquidity was needed for a security. They were like other floor traders; they hung out on the exchange floors and interacted with traders to buy and sell stocks. Traders came to them when they wanted to buy one of the specialist's issues. There was no public order book; just ticker tape and a quote. It was up to the market maker to maintain that order book. Since they are effectively forbidden from being one-sided traders in a security, their profit comes from the bid-ask spread. Being the counter-party to almost every trade, they'd make profit from always selling above where they were buying. (Except when the price moved quickly -- the downside to this arrangement.) \"\"The spread goes to the market maker\"\" is just stating that the profit implicit in the spread gets consumed by the market maker. With the switch to ECNs, the role of the market maker has changed. For example, ForEx trading firms tend to act as market makers to their customers. On ECNs, the invisible, anonymous guy at the other end of most trades is often a market maker, still performing his traditional role. Yet brokers can interact directly with each other now, rather than relying on the market maker's book. With modern online investing and public order books, retail investors might even be trading directly with each other. Market makers are still out there; in part, they perform a service sold by an Exchange to the companies that choose to be listed on that exchange. That service has changed to helping tamp volatility during normal high-volatility periods (such as at open and close).\"" }, { "docid": "22916", "title": "", "text": "On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer." }, { "docid": "186184", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"" }, { "docid": "505865", "title": "", "text": "Okay. They're faster than most other computers. They either have a dedicated fiber line or are physically closer. But anyways, they flood the NYSE with tons of orders to slow it down. So they see another broker's order in the line up and delete the bogus orders. They can then make the purchase faster than the other guy. The other guy now has to pay a higher strike price than he initially thought the bid would be. So let's say Apple's quote is 1.00 They send one order for apple One for IBM One for Yahoo One for NBC Comcast They see another guy wants Apple. So they cancel the orders for IBM, Yahoo and NBC Comcast and leave the Apple one to complete. The Apple one goes through and then they automatically resell it to the guy looking to buy Apple at a price of 1.0001 TLDR They flood a bunch of orders at a bunch of different prices/quantities. They cancel before it goes through unless they see someone else wants it. If that person wants it they don't cancel. edit: I don't even know if all or any of those stocks are listed on the NYSE. In today's world it doesn't make a difference anymore. However, replace NYSE with any exchange and the stock with any ticker symbol. edit 2: They could also manipulate cross listing. Listing the same stock on two different exchanges. Those prices are mostly uniform but of course higher volume on one could mean a higher price on one before they stabilize. So if you can move fast you can buy the stock at the lower price and sell it on the exchange with the higher price." }, { "docid": "72024", "title": "", "text": "\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"" }, { "docid": "42625", "title": "", "text": "\"This question drives at what value a shareholder actually provides to a corporation, and by extent, to the economy. If you subscribe for new shares (like in an Initial Public Offering), it is very straightforward to say \"\"I have provided capital to the corporation, which it is using to advance its business.\"\" If you buy shares that already exist (like in a typical share purchase on a public exchange), your money doesn't go to the company. Instead, it goes to someone who paid someone who paid someone who paid someone (etc.) who originally contributed money to the corporation. In theory, the value of a share price does not directly impact the operation of the company itself, apart from what @DanielCarson aptly noted (employee stock options are affected by share price, impacting morale, etc.). This is because in theory, the true value of a company (and thus, the value of a share) is the present value of all future cashflows (dividends + final liquidation). This means that in a technical sense, a company's share price should result from the company's value. The company's true value does not result from the share price. But what you are doing as a shareholder is impacting the liquidity available to other potential investors (also as mentioned by @DanielCarson, in reference to the desirability for future financing). The more people who invest their money in the stock market, the more liquid those stocks become. This is the true value you add to the economy by investing in stocks - you add liquidity to the market, decreasing the risk of capital investment generally. The fewer people there are who are willing to invest in a particular company, the harder it is for an investor to buy or sell shares at will. If it is difficult to sell shares in a company, the risk of holding shares in that company is higher, because you can't \"\"cash out\"\" as easily. This increased risk then does change the value of the shares - because even though the corporation's internal value is the same, the projected cashflows of the shares themselves now has a question mark around the ability to sell when desired. Whether this actually has an impact on anything depends on how many people join you in your declaration of ethical investing. Like many other forms of social activism, success relies on joint effort. This goes beyond the direct and indirect impacts mentioned above; if 'ethical investing' becomes more pronounced, it may begin to stigmatize the target companies (fewer people wanting to work for 'blacklist' corporations, fewer people buying their products, etc.).\"" }, { "docid": "31933", "title": "", "text": "The Limit Order are matched based on amount and time. The orders are listed Highest to Lowest on the Buy Side. The orders are listed Lowest to Highest on the Sell Side. If there are 2 Sell orders for same amount the order which is first in time [fractions of milliseconds] is first. The about is the example as to how the orders would look like on any exchange. Now the highest price the buyer is ready to pay is 20.21 and the lowest price a seller is ready to sell for is 20.25. Hence there is no trade. Now if a new Buy order comes in at 20.25, it matches with the sell and the deal is made. If a new Buy order comes in at 20.30, it still matches at 20.25. Similarly if a Sell order come in at 20.21, it matches and a deal is made. If a Sell order come in at 20.11, it still matches 20.21. Incase of market order, with the above example if there is a Buy order, it would match with the lowest sell order at 20.25, if there is not enough quantity , it would match the remaining quantity to the next highest at 20.31 and continue down. Similarly if there is a Sell market order, the it would match to the maximum a seller is ready to buy, ie 20.21, if there is not sufficient buy quantity at 20.21, it will match with next for 20.19 If say there are new buy order at 20.22 and sell orders at 20.24, these will sit first the the above queue to be matched. In your above example the Lowest Sell order was at 20.10 at time t1 and hence any buy order after time t1 for amount 20.10 or greater would match to this and the price would be 20.10. However if the Buy order was first ie at t1 there was a buy order for 20.21 and then at time later than t1, there is a sell order for say 20.10 [amount less than or equal to 20.21] it would match for 20.21. Essentially the market looks at who was the first to sell at lower price or who was the first to buy at higher price and then decide the trade. Edit [To Clarify xyz]: Say if there is an Sell order at $10 Qty 100. There is a buyer who is willing to pay Max $20 and is looking for Qty 500. Your key assumption that the Buyer does not know the current SELL price of $10 is incorrect. Now there are multiple things, the Buyer knows the lowest Sell order is at $10, he can put a matching Buy order at $10 Qty 100, and say $11 Qty 100 etc. This is painful. Second, lets say he puts a Buy order at $10 Qty 100, by the time the order hits the system someone else has put the trade at $10 and his order is fulfilled. So this buyer has to keep looking at booking and keep making adjustments, if its a large order, it would be extremely difficult and frustrating for this Buyer. Hence the logic of giving preference. The later Buy order says ... The Max I can pay is $20, match eveything at the current price and get the required shares." }, { "docid": "166854", "title": "", "text": "This all happens at once and quickly. Not in order. So the HFT floods the exchange with orders. This is independent of anything. They would be doing this no matter what. Simply in anticipation of finding someone who will want what they're trying to buy. They then notice someone wants what they have a buy order for. They, at the same time, cancel all orders that don't fit this criteria. At the same time, they're testing this guy to see what his price is. So while they're testing this guy they're cancelling all orders that are above his strike price for that stock. They let the right order go through, for a lower price. If they can't get a lower price, they just forget it. However, they probably can because they were in line first. They're buying before this guy and AFTER they know what he wants to pay. Then, they sell it to him." }, { "docid": "194240", "title": "", "text": "\"One idea: If you came up with a model to calculate a \"\"fair price range\"\" for a stock, then any time the market price were to go below the range it could be a buy signal, and above the range it could be a sell signal. There are many ways to do stock valuation using fundamental analysis tools and ratios: dividend discount model, PEG, etc. See Wikipedia - Stock valuation. And while many of the inputs to such a \"\"fair price range\"\" calculation might only change once per quarter, market prices and peer/sector statistics move more frequently or at different times and could generate signals to buy/sell the stock even if its own inputs to the calculation remain static over the period. For multinationals that have a lot of assets and income denominated in other currencies, foreign exchange rates provide another set of interesting inputs. I also think it's important to recognize that with fundamental analysis, there will be extended periods when there are no buy signals for a stock, because the stocks of many popular, profitable companies never go \"\"on sale\"\", except perhaps during a panic. Moreover, during a bull market and especially during a bubble, there may be very few stocks worth buying. Fundamental analysis is designed to prevent one from overpaying for a stock, so even if there is interesting volume and price movement for the stock, there should still be no signal if that action happens well beyond the stock's fair price. (Otherwise, it isn't fundamental analysis — it's technical analysis.) Whereas technical analysis can, by definition, generate far more signals because it largely ignores the fundamentals, which can make even an overvalued stock's movement interesting enough to generate signals.\"" }, { "docid": "472537", "title": "", "text": "The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for." } ]

[ { "docid": "78675", "title": "", "text": "\"Just to be clear to start, beta is a statistical property. So if your beta is 0.8 over a period of time. Stock X moved on average 0.8 for a point move in the index. We might hope this property is persistent and it seems to be fairly persistent (predictable) but it doesn't have to be. Also it is important to note this is not a lag in time. Beta is a measure of the average size of a move in the stock at the same time as a move in the index. In your example both the stock and index are measured at end of day. You can say that the stock \"\"lags\"\" behind the index because it doesn't grow as quickly as the market when the market is growing, but this is not a lag in time just a lag in magnitude. People do occasionally calculate betas between a stock and lagged in time market prices, but this is not the commonly used meaning of beta. This might actually be a more useful measure as then you could bet on the future of the stock given what happened today in the market, but these \"\"betas\"\" tend to be much more unstable than the synchronized version and hard to trade on. When you calculated beta you choose a time scale, in this case daily. So if your calculation is on a day-to-day basis then you have only tested the relationship on a day-to-day basis not, for instance, on a week-to-week basis. Now day-to-day and week-to-week betas are often related and are generally reasonably close but they do not have to be. There can be longer term effects only picked up on the longer scale. Stock X could day-to-day with a (average) beta of 1 to the stock market, but could have even a negative beta year-to-year with the market if the stock is counter-cyclical to longer scale trends on the market. So beta can change with the time scale used in the calculation.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "367294", "title": "", "text": "Stock prices are set by supply and demand. If a particular stock has a high EPS, say, $100, then people will bid more for that stock, driving up its price over one with a $10 EPS. Your job as an investor is to find stocks with low share prices, but which will give you high earnings (either in dividends, our future share price). This means finding stocks which you believe the market has priced incorrectly, for whatever reason (as an example, many bank stocks are being punished right now, even if the underlying banks are in good shape financially). If you want to beat the market indices, be prepared to do a lot of research, because you're trying to outsmart the market as a whole." }, { "docid": "298350", "title": "", "text": "\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"" }, { "docid": "12879", "title": "", "text": "\"You can see how much of a percentage the S&amp;P 500 is of the GDP over the past 10 years in this handy graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=oCZ When the stock market was doing poorly (2009) it was only 0.06% of GDP. When it's doing well (now) it's 0.12% of the GDP. It's also not useful to directly compare percentages like you're doing. Just because one averages 6% growth and one averages 3% growth, that doesn't mean that the 6% one will take over. It doesn't take much of a correction to wipe out decades of S&amp;P vs GDP growth. You might also be interested in knowing that this ratio is similar to the \"\"Buffet Indicator\"\", how Warren Buffet decides if stocks are overvalued as a whole: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/04/04/market-cap-to-gdp-an-updated-look-at-the-buffett-valuation-indicator\"" }, { "docid": "915", "title": "", "text": "I think what's screwing up my calculation is the (reL), return on equity levereged figure. The beta for KORS apparently is -0.58, so when I use the formula reL = rf + (ßL)(rm - rf), I get -0.0048 as my reL. Am I doing my beta wrong? Am I supposed to use a different figure for my beta? ALSO, further in the process, when using the formula for WACC, my E/(D+E) is essentially 1.0 because market value of equity for KORS is 7bill and its market value of debt is only like 147 million. edit: I'm beginning to believe that my beta of -0.58 is not rightly used. It's what yahoo told me, but other sources are saying that the beta of KORS is more like -0.01 or close to 0. Yes? edit 2: Using -0.01 beta, I get a rdWACC of 2.2%. Now this seems more plausible. I did some research on negative betas and found out that they basically don't really exist aside from gold. So Yahoo must be giving me a weird beta figure. Other websites are all giving me -0.01, so I believe that is correct." }, { "docid": "3118", "title": "", "text": "Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'. You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you. There is sometimes an option to re-invest dividends, See Westyfresh's answer regarding Dividend Re-Investment Plans. As Tom Au described, the dividends are set by the board of directors and announced. Also as he indicated just before the 'record' date, a stock which pays dividends is worth slightly more (reflecting the value of the dividend that will be paid to anyone holding the stock on the record date) and goes down by the dividend amount immediately after that date (since you'd now have to hold the stock till the next record date to get a dividend) In general unless there's a big change in the landscape (such as in late 2008) most companies pay out about the same dividend each time, and changes to this are sometimes seen by some as 'indicators' of company health and such news can result in movement in the stock price. When you look at a basic quote on a ticker symbol there is usually a line for Div/yeild which gives the amount of dividend paid per share, and the relative yeild (as a percentage of the stock price). If a company has been paying dividends, this field will have values in it, if a company does not pay a dividend it will be blank or say NA (depending on where you get the quote). This is the easiest way to see if a company pays a dividend or not. for example if you look at this quote for Google, you can see it pays no dividend Now, in terms of telling when and how much of a dividend has been paid, most financial sites have the option when viewing a stock chart to show the dividend payments. If you expand the chart to show at least a year, you can see when and how much was paid in terms of dividends. For example you can see from this chart that MSFT pays dividends once a quarter, and used to pay out 13 cents, but recently changed to 16 cents. if you were to float your mouse over one of those icons it would also give the date the dividend was paid." }, { "docid": "306189", "title": "", "text": "There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing." }, { "docid": "573612", "title": "", "text": "\"I reread your question. You are not asking about the validity of selling a particular stock after a bit of an increase but a group of stocks. We don't know how many. This is the S&P for the past 12 months. Trading at 1025-1200 or so means that 80-100 points is an 8% move. I count 4 such moves during this time. The philosophy of \"\"you can't go wrong taking a gain\"\" is tough for me to grasp as it offers no advice on when to get (back) in. Studies by firms such as Dalbar (you can google for some of their public material) show data that supports the fact that average investors lag the market by a huge amount. 20 years ending 12/31/08 the S&P returned 8.35%, investor equity returns showed 1.87%. I can only conclude that this is a result of buying high and selling low, not staying the course. The data also leads me to believe the best advice one can give to people we meet in these circumstances is to invest in index funds, keeping your expenses low as you can. I've said this since read Jack Bogle decades ago, and this advice would have yielded about 8.25% over the 20 years, beating the average investor by far, by guaranteeing lagging the average by 10 basis points or so. A summary of the more extensive report citing the numbers I referenced is available for down load - QAIB 2015 - Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior. It's quite an eye-opener and a worthy read. (The original report was dated 2009, but the link broke, so I've updated to the latest report, 2015)\"" }, { "docid": "150672", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Banks benefit from lower interest rates because it decreases the rate at which they can borrow from the Federal Reserve from. But what matters is the spread: if rates on the borrowing and lending side go down, the spread % shrinks, which makes banks less profitable. That's why bank stocks go up when higher rates are anticipated. You can think of a bank stock as being long interest rates. That's why bank stocks have lagged the rest of the market during this long bull market. &gt;Bank's Assets aren't all debt The vast majority is for most banks. GS and MS are the rare exceptions." }, { "docid": "459596", "title": "", "text": "\"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \"\"established\"\" economies and a certain fraction into \"\"emerging\"\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\"" }, { "docid": "597679", "title": "", "text": "\"Leverage here is referring to \"\"financial leverage\"\". This is the practice of \"\"levering\"\" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt. For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. \"\"Beta riders\"\" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore \"\"leveraged beta riders\"\" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered \"\"blindly\"\" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A \"\"quant process driven discipline\"\" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether \"\"beta riding\"\" or \"\"quant processes\"\" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented.\"" }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" }, { "docid": "304398", "title": "", "text": "Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here." }, { "docid": "311607", "title": "", "text": "Speaking from stock market point of view, superficially, TA is similarly applicable to day trading, short term, medium term and long term. You may use different indicators in FX compared to the stock market, but I would expect they are largely the same types of things - direction indicators, momentum indicators, spread indicators, divergence indicators. The key thing with TA or even when trading anything, is that when you have developed a system, that you back test it, to prove that it will work in bear, bull and stagnant markets. I have simple systems that are fine in strong bull markets but really poor in stagnant markets. Also have a trading plan. Know when you are going to exit and enter your trades, what criteria and what position size. Understand how much you are risking on each trade and actively manage your risk. I urge caution over your statement ... one weakened by parting the political union but ought to bounce back ... We (my UK based IT business) have already lost two potential clients due to Brexit. These companies are in FinServ and have no idea of what is going to happen, so I would respectfully suggest that you may have less knowledge than professionals, who deal in currency and property ... but one premise of TA is that you let the chart tell you what is happening. In any case trade well, and with a plan!" }, { "docid": "559768", "title": "", "text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"" }, { "docid": "406768", "title": "", "text": "The point of buying an index fund is that you don't have to pick winners. As long as the winners are included in the index fund (which can include far more than 500 stocks), you benefit on average because of overall upward historical market performance. Picking only the top 50 capitalized stocks in the S&P 500 does not guarantee you will successfully track the S&P 500 index because the stocks in the tail can account for an outsized amount of overall growth; the top 50 stocks by market capitalization change over time, and these stocks are not necessarily the stocks that perform better. As direct example, the 10 year average annual return for the S&P top 50 is 4.52%, while the 10 year average annual return for the S&P 500 is 5.10%. Issues of trading and balancing to maintain these aside, these indices are not the same." }, { "docid": "497786", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"" }, { "docid": "260085", "title": "", "text": "\"Some technical indicators (e.g. Williams %R) indicate whether the market is overbought or oversold. ... Every time a stock or commodity is bought, it is also sold. And vice versa. So how can anything ever be over-bought or over-sold? But I'm sure I'm missing something. What is it? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how equity markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers, who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for Market Makers to accumulate a large number of shares, without end-investors being involved on both sides of the transaction. This is one example of how instruments can be over-bought or over-sold. Since Williams %R creates over-bought and over-sold signals based on historical averages of open / close prices, perhaps it's better to think of these terms as \"\"over-valued\"\" and \"\"under-valued\"\". Of course, there could be good reason for instruments to open or close outside their expected ranges, so Williams %R is just a tool to give you clues... not a real evaluation of the instrument's true value.\"" }, { "docid": "276960", "title": "", "text": "I'll just add this: In the best hedge funds and proprietary trading funds, stock selection is approached very scientifically in order to minimize losses/maximize gains. Researchers think of a trading idea and carefully test it to see which methods of stock selection work and how well, and finally they combine them. Every day researchers update their models based on the past performance of each indicator. All this is just too much work to be done manually. Firms use machine learning methods to understand markets. They try to figure out what is normal, what did not happen correctly at a specific time, what will happen in future. For instance, they use deep learning networks to look at unlabeled data, and figure out what is normal and what is not. These networks can analyze an unstructured haystack of noise, and separate out the signal. This is very relevant to finance and markets because finding the patterns and anomalies in market data has been the bread and butter of traders for decades. Deep learning networks give us applications like feature learning. By 'features,' I'm referring to certain attributes in data that indicate an event. By anticipating them, we can help predict future price movements. New technology is allowing us to break new ground in managing risk, to be a-typical and manage risk in ever-improving ways. It's the responsibility of every trader, whether working for themselves or others, to take advantage of this technology to improve the collective investing experience. I care very deeply about this. I have many close friends, in the finance world and without, who have lost large amounts of money to poor trade tools and lack of transparency." }, { "docid": "84610", "title": "", "text": "\"There are some euphemisms that are better known than others. A category of stocks that's suitable for \"\"widows and orphans\"\" would be stocks that are low beta, and perhaps high dividend. Safe (being relative) enough to put a window's money into. The term \"\"cake and underwear\"\" appears to me to be a Buffetism. And I'd interpret it to mean,\"\"not tech, not stocks that are either high growth or cyclic, but stocks that make things that have steady demand and that most consumers use.\"\" Google the phrase, only Buffet comes up.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "79998", "title": "", "text": "The beta of a stock can be interpreted as the average relative movement of a stock with respect to the movement of a market index. In your case, the stock will move on average by 0.8. Thus over a longer time horizon, not on a daily, weekly basis." } ]

[ { "docid": "332435", "title": "", "text": "\"FTSE ethical investment index: http://www.ftse.com/products/indices/FTSE4Good \"\"The FTSE4Good Index is a series of ethical investment stock market indices launched in 2001 by the FTSE Group. A number of stock market indices are available, for example covering UK shares, US shares, European markets, and Japan, with inclusion based on a range of corporate social responsibility criteria. Research for the indices is supported by the Ethical Investment Research Services (EIRIS).\"\" - Wikipedia\"" }, { "docid": "16491", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets/feds-great-unwinding-lifts-dollar-china-rating-gets-the-chop-idUSKCN1BW03Z?il=0) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; NEW YORK - The U.S. Treasury yield curve flattened to a two-and-a half month low and key world stock markets fell on Thursday, as investors assessed indications from the U.S. Federal Reserve that it may raise interest rates a third time this year. &gt; U.S. stocks pulled back from their all-time highs, though bank stocks cheered the prospect of higher interest rates which should help their profits. &gt; China&amp;#039;s markets were already closed by the time it came but it kept the pressure on emerging markets stocks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/71lga0/feds_great_unwinding_lifts_dollar_china_rating/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~214093 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*: **percent**^#1 **market**^#2 **rate**^#3 **U.S.**^#4 **more**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "42438", "title": "", "text": "Options are an indication what a particular segment of the market (those who deal a lot in options) think will happen. (and just because people think that, doesn't mean it will) Bearing in mind however that people writing covered-calls may due so simply as part of a strategy to mitigate downside risk at the expense of limiting upside potential. The presence of more people offering up options is to a degree an indication they are thinking the price will fall or hold steady, since that is in effect the 'bet' they are making. OTOH the people buying those options are making the opposite bet.. so who is to say which will be right. The balance between the two and how it affects the price of the options could be taken as an indication of market sentiment (within the options market) as to the future direction the stock is likely to take. (I just noticed that Blackjack posted the forumula that can be used to model all of this) To address the last part of your question 'does that mean it will go lower' I would say this. The degree to which any of this puts actual pressure on the stock of the underlying instrument is highly debatable, since many (likely most) people trading in a stock never look at what the options for that stock are doing, but base their decision on other factors such as price history, momentum, fundamentals and recent news about the company. To presume that actions in the options market would put pressure on a stock price, you would need to believe that a signficant fraction of the buyers and sellers were paying attention to the options market. Which might be the case for some Quants, but likely not for a lot of other buyers. And it could be argued even then that both groups, those trading options, and those trading stocks, are both looking at the same information to make their predictions of the likely future for the stock, and thus even if there is a correlation between what the stock price does in relation to options, there is no real causality that can be established. We would in fact predict that given access to the same information, both groups would by and large be taking similar parallel actions due to coming to similar conclusions regarding the future price of the stock. What is far MORE likely to pressure the price would be just the shear number of buyers or sellers, and also (especially since repeal of the uptick rule) someone who is trying to actively drive down the price via a lot of shorting at progressively lower prices. (something that is alleged to have been carried out by some hedge fund managers in the course of 'bear raids' on particular companies)" }, { "docid": "459596", "title": "", "text": "\"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \"\"established\"\" economies and a certain fraction into \"\"emerging\"\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\"" }, { "docid": "427674", "title": "", "text": "\"I am guessing that when you say \"\"FRENCH40\"\" and \"\"GERMAN30\"\" you are referring to the main French and German stock market indices. The main French index is the CAC-40 with its 40 constituent companies. The main German index is the DAX, which has 30 constituents. The US30 is presumably the Dow Jones Index which also has 30 constituents. These are stock market indices that are used to measure the value of a basket of shares (the index constituents). As the value of the constituents change, so does the value of the index. There are various financial instruments that allow investors to profit from movements in these indices. It is those people who invest in these instruments that profit from price movements. The constituent companies receive no direct benefit or profit from investor trading in these instruments, nor does the government.\"" }, { "docid": "503734", "title": "", "text": "\"As more actively managed funds are driven out of the market, the pricing of individual stocks should become less rational. I.e. more stocks will become underpriced relative to their peers. As stock prices become less rational, the reward for active investing will increase, since it will become easier to \"\"pick a winner\"\". Eventually, the market will reach a new equilibrium where only active investors who are good enough to turn a profit will remain. Even then, passive investment will still do roughly as well as \"\"the market\"\" since it has low overhead and minimal investment lag. There is no reason to expect the system to collapse, since it is characterized primarily by negative feedback loops rather than positive feedback. The last few decades have seen a shift from active to passive investment because increased market transparency and efficiency have reduced the labor required to keep pricing rational. Basically, as people have gotten better at predicting stock performance, less active investment has been required to keep prices rational.\"" }, { "docid": "433023", "title": "", "text": "Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices." }, { "docid": "406768", "title": "", "text": "The point of buying an index fund is that you don't have to pick winners. As long as the winners are included in the index fund (which can include far more than 500 stocks), you benefit on average because of overall upward historical market performance. Picking only the top 50 capitalized stocks in the S&P 500 does not guarantee you will successfully track the S&P 500 index because the stocks in the tail can account for an outsized amount of overall growth; the top 50 stocks by market capitalization change over time, and these stocks are not necessarily the stocks that perform better. As direct example, the 10 year average annual return for the S&P top 50 is 4.52%, while the 10 year average annual return for the S&P 500 is 5.10%. Issues of trading and balancing to maintain these aside, these indices are not the same." }, { "docid": "3118", "title": "", "text": "Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'. You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you. There is sometimes an option to re-invest dividends, See Westyfresh's answer regarding Dividend Re-Investment Plans. As Tom Au described, the dividends are set by the board of directors and announced. Also as he indicated just before the 'record' date, a stock which pays dividends is worth slightly more (reflecting the value of the dividend that will be paid to anyone holding the stock on the record date) and goes down by the dividend amount immediately after that date (since you'd now have to hold the stock till the next record date to get a dividend) In general unless there's a big change in the landscape (such as in late 2008) most companies pay out about the same dividend each time, and changes to this are sometimes seen by some as 'indicators' of company health and such news can result in movement in the stock price. When you look at a basic quote on a ticker symbol there is usually a line for Div/yeild which gives the amount of dividend paid per share, and the relative yeild (as a percentage of the stock price). If a company has been paying dividends, this field will have values in it, if a company does not pay a dividend it will be blank or say NA (depending on where you get the quote). This is the easiest way to see if a company pays a dividend or not. for example if you look at this quote for Google, you can see it pays no dividend Now, in terms of telling when and how much of a dividend has been paid, most financial sites have the option when viewing a stock chart to show the dividend payments. If you expand the chart to show at least a year, you can see when and how much was paid in terms of dividends. For example you can see from this chart that MSFT pays dividends once a quarter, and used to pay out 13 cents, but recently changed to 16 cents. if you were to float your mouse over one of those icons it would also give the date the dividend was paid." }, { "docid": "597679", "title": "", "text": "\"Leverage here is referring to \"\"financial leverage\"\". This is the practice of \"\"levering\"\" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt. For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. \"\"Beta riders\"\" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore \"\"leveraged beta riders\"\" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered \"\"blindly\"\" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A \"\"quant process driven discipline\"\" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether \"\"beta riding\"\" or \"\"quant processes\"\" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented.\"" }, { "docid": "565501", "title": "", "text": "One could use technical indicators in any number of ways...they aren't rigidly defined for use in any particular way. If they were, only computers would use them. Having said that, moving averages are frequently used by people operating on the assumption that short-term price movements will soon be reverted back to a longer-term mean. So if the price shoots up today, traders who use moving averages may believe it will come back down pretty soon. If this is the belief (and it usually is for this type of trader), a price significantly above a moving average could indicate an overpriced stock. A price below the moving average could indicate an underpriced stock. Similarly, a short-term moving average above the long-term moving average may indicate an overpriced stock. When you are dealing with more than one frequency, though, there is more disagreement about how to use technical indicators. Some traders would probably say the opposite: that a short term average above the long term average indicates an upward movement that will continue because they believe the stock has momentum. Note that I am not saying I believe in using these averages to predict mean reversion or momentum effects, just that traders who rely on moving averages frequently do." }, { "docid": "150632", "title": "", "text": "You can hedge your house price from losing value if you believe that the housing market is correlated with major stock indices. Speak with a commodities broker because they will be able to help you buy puts on stock indices which if correlated with housing prices will offer somewhat of a hedge. Example. House prices drop 30% because of weak economy, stocks will generally drop around that same amount 30%. If you have enough exposure to in the puts compared to your house value you will be protected. You can also buy calls in 30 year bonds for interest rate lock if you are not on a fixed interest rate. Many investors like warren buffet and carl icahn have been protecting them selves from a potential market downward turn. Speak to a local commodity broker to get some detailed advice, not etrade or any discount brokers they won't be able to help you specialize your trades. look for a full time commodity broker house." }, { "docid": "542765", "title": "", "text": "Using Fundamental and Technical Analysis together is actually a good idea for longer term trading of up to 6 months or longer. The whole idea behind trading with Technical Analysis is to increase the probabilities of a trade going in the desired direction by using uncorrelated indicators that produce the same signal to buy or sell at the same time. For example, you might use a Moving Average (MA) as a buy signal when the price falls for a few days, hits the MA and then reverses and starts moving back up. If however, you also include a Stochastic Oscillator (SO) to indicate when the stock is oversold (under 20%), and if the price rebounds from the MA average at the same time as the Stochastic is crossing over in the oversold position, then this may be a higher probability trade. If you also only trade stocks that are Fundamentally healthy (as fundamentally good stocks are more likely to go up than fundamentally bad stocks) then this might increase the probabilities again. Then if you only buy when the market as a whole is moving up, then this will increase your chances again. A few weeks ago at a seminar, the presenter totalled the men in the room to be 76 and the women in the room to be 8. He then asked what will most likely be the next person to walk in the room - a man or a woman? The statistics are on the side of a wan walking in next. This is what we try to do with Technical Analysis, increase our chances when we take a trade. Of course a woman could be the next person to walk in the room, just like any trade can go against you, and this is why we use money management and risk management and take a small loss when a trade does go against you. Lets look at an example where you could incorporate FA with TA to increase your chances of profits: Above is a candlestick chart of Select Harvest (SHV), the green line above the price is the perceived value, the pink line is the 40 day MA, the blue line is the EPS, and the white lines is the Stochastic Oscillator (above 80% being overbought and below 20% is oversold). From Feb 2015 to start of Aug 2015 the stock was uptrending, since then the price reversed and started to downtrend. The stock was determined to be fundamentally good early in 2015 with the perceived value gradually increasing and greater than the share price, and the EPS starting to increase regularly from mid April. Thus, as the stock is seen as fundamentally healthy any price reversal in the vicinity of the MA could be seen as a buy opportunity. In fact there where 2 such opportunities on 31st March and 11th June where price had reversed and rebounded off the MA whist the SO crossed over in or near the oversold area. The price did reverse and then rebounded off the MA again on 9th July, however the SO was not in or near the oversold area on this occasion, so not as high in probability terms. The price still rebounded and went up again, however another momentum indicator (not shown here) shows some bearish divergence in this case - so another reason to possibly keep away at this point in time. A good signal to get out of the trade, that is your stop loss has not already taken you out, is when the price breaks and closes below the MA line. This occurred on 7th August. So if we had bought on the first signal on 31st March for $7.41 and sold when the priced broke through the MA on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made a profit of approx. 59% in just over 4 months. If bought on the second signal on 11th June for $9.98 and again sold on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made about 18% in under 2 months. So the fundamentals, the Price (in relation to MA) and the SO where all lining up to provide two high probability trades. Of course you would need to incorporate you risk management (including stops) in case the price did not continue upwards after you bought. If the market is also moving up on the day of the signal this will further increase your chances. Unless you day trade, which I would avoid, a good way to enter your trades after a signal is to enter a stop buy order after market close to buy if the price moves above the high of the signal day. That way if the market and the stock open and move lower during the day after the signal you avoid entering the trade altogether. This can be incorporated as part of your risk management and trading rules. After the price broke down through the MA we can see that a downtrend commenced which is still current today (in fact I just took a short trade on this stock yesterday). We can also see that the perceived value, whilst still above the price, has reached a peak and is currently moving downwards and the EPS after being flat for a few months has just moved down for the first time in 10 months. So maybe the fundamentals are starting to waver a bit on this stock. It may be a good stock to continue shorting into the future. So basically you can continue using Fundamental Analysis to select which stocks to buy, place them in a watch-list, and then use Technical Analysis to determine when these stocks are starting to uptrend and use a combination of uncorrelated indicators to produce higher probability signals for when to enter your trades." }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" }, { "docid": "593521", "title": "", "text": "From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!" }, { "docid": "395481", "title": "", "text": "If you do not need it for a day or a week or something like that, an easy thing to do to get the beta of a security is to use wolframalpha. Here is a sample query: BETA for AAPL Calculating beta is an important metric, but it is not a be all end all, as there are ways to hedge the beta of your portfolio. So relying on beta is only useful if it is done in conjunction with something else. A high beta security just means that overall the security acts as the market does with some multiplier effect. For a secure portfolio you want beta as close to zero as possible for capital preservation while trying to find ways to exploit alpha." }, { "docid": "72054", "title": "", "text": "\"Dividend-paying securities generally have predictable cash flows. A telecom, electric or gas utility is a great example. They collect a fairly predictable amount of money and sells goods at a fairly predictable or even regulated markup. It is easy for these companies to pay a consistent dividend since the business is \"\"sticky\"\" and insulated by cyclical factors. More cyclic investments like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Gold, etc are more exposed to the crests and troughs of the economy. They swing with the economy, although not always on the same cycle. The DJIA is a basket of 30 large industrial stocks. Gold is a commodity that spikes when people are faced with uncertainty. The \"\"Alpha\"\" and \"\"Beta\"\" of a stock will give you some idea of the general behavior of a stock against the entire market, when the market is trending up and down respectively.\"" }, { "docid": "322070", "title": "", "text": "\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"" }, { "docid": "59994", "title": "", "text": "The Japanese stock market offers a wide selection of popular ETFs tracking the various indices and sub-indices of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. See this page from the Japan Exchange Group site for a detailed listing of the ETFs being offered on the Tokyo exchange. As you have suggested, one would expect that Japanese investors would be reluctant to track the local market indices because of the relatively poor performance of the Japanese markets over the last couple of decades. However, this does not appear to be the case. In fact, there seems to be a heavy bias towards Tokyo indices as measured by the NAV/Market Cap of listed ETFs. The main Tokyo indices - the broad TOPIX and the large cap Nikkei - dominate investor choice. The big five ETFs tracking the Nikkei 225 have a total net asset value of 8.5Trillion Yen (72Billion USD), while the big four ETFs tracking the TOPIX have a total net asset value of 8.0Trillion Yen (68Billion USD). Compare this to the small net asset values of those Tokyo listed ETFs tracking the S&P500 or the EURO STOXX 50. For example, the largest S&P500 tracker is the Nikko Asset Management S&P500 ETF with net asset value of just 67Million USD and almost zero liquidity. If I remember my stereotypes correctly, it is the Japanese housewife that controls the household budget and investment decisions, and the Japanese housewife is famously conservative and patriotic with their investment choices. Japanese government bonds have yielded next to nothing for as long as I can remember, yet they remain the first choice amongst housewives. The 1.3% yield on a Nikkei 225 ETF looks positively generous by comparison and so will carry some temptations." } ]

[ { "docid": "328794", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two components of option valuation, the value that's \"\"in the money\"\" and the \"\"time value.\"\" In the case of the $395 put, that option was already in the money and it will move less than the stock price by a bit as there will still be some time value there. $22.52 is intrinsic value (the right word for 'in the money') and the rest is time. The $365 strike is still out of the money, but as jldugger implied, the chance of it going through that strike is better as it's $6.66 closer. Looking at the options chain gives you a better perspective on this. If Apple went up $20 Monday, and down $20 Tuesday, these prices would be higher as implied volatility would also go higher. Now, I'd hardly call a drop of under 2% \"\"tanking\"\" but on the otherhand, I'd not call the 25% jump in the option price skyrocketing. Options do this all the time. Curious what prompted the question, are you interested in trading options? This stock in particular?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "134419", "title": "", "text": "\"I can't speak authoritatively to your broader question about stocks in general, but in several years tracking AAPL closely, I can tell you that there's little apparent pattern to when their earnings call will be, or when it will be announced. What little I do know: - AAPL's calls tend to occur on a Tuesday more than any other day of the week - it's announced roughly a month in advance, but has been announced w/ less notice - it has a definite range of dates in which it occurs, typically somewhere in the 3rd week of the new quarter plus or minus a few days More broadly for #1: Given the underlying nature of what an option is, then yes, the day an earnings call date is announced could certainly influence the IV/price of options - but only for options that expire inside the \"\"grey area\"\" (~2 weeks long) window in which the call could potentially occur. Options expiring outside that grey area should experience little to no price change in reaction to the announcement of the date - unless the date was itself surprising, e.g. an earlier date would increase the premium on earlier dated options, a later date would increase the premium for later-dated options. As for #2: The exact date will probably always be a mystery, but the main factors are: - the historical pattern of earnings call dates (and announcements of those dates) which you can look up for any given company - when the company's quarter ends - potentially some influence in how long it takes the company to close out their books for the quarter (some types of businesses would be faster than others) - any special considerations for this particular quarter that affect reporting ability And finally: - a surprise of an earnings call occurring (substantively) later than usual is rarely going to be a good sign for the underlying security, and the expectation of catastrophe - while cratering the underlying - may also cause a disproportionate rise in IVs/prices due to fear\"" }, { "docid": "212025", "title": "", "text": "The difference is whether your options qualify as incentive stock options (ISOs), or whether they are non-qualifying options. If your options meet all of the criteria for being ISOs (see here), then (a) you are not taxed when you exercise the options. You treat the sale of the underlying stock as a long term capital gain, with the basis being the exercise price (S). There is something about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as they pertain to these kinds of options. Calculating your AMT basically means that your ISOs are treated as non-qualifying options. So if your exercise bumps you into AMT territory, too bad, so sad. If you exercise earlier, you do get a clock ticking, as you put it, because one of the caveats of having your options qualify as ISOs is that you hold the underlying stock (a) at least two years after you were granted the options and (b) at least one year after you exercise the options." }, { "docid": "371621", "title": "", "text": "\"You'd need to know the delta and the theta of the option. You can either calculate them yourself using a model like Black-Scholes (assuming you have a market price and can imply a volatility, and know the other factors that go into the model) or, you can see if your broker quotes \"\"greeks\"\" as well (mine does). The delta is the sensitivity (rate of change in value) to the underlying stock price, and the theta is the sensitivity to time passing (usually expressed in $/day). So if your option has a delta of .5 and a theta of -.04, when one day passes and the underlying stock goes up $3, the option will gain roughly $1.50 due to the underlying stock price and lose $0.04 due to time passing.\"" }, { "docid": "257609", "title": "", "text": "If the call is in the money and you believe the reason for the price jump was an overreaction with a pullback on the horizon or you anticipate downward movement for other reasons, I will roll (sometimes for a strike closer to at the money) as long as the trade results in a net credit! You already have the statistical edge trading covered calls over everyone who purchased stock at the same point in time. This is because covered calls reduce your cost basis and increase your probability of profit. For people reading this who are not interested in the math behind probability of profit(POP) for covered calls, you should be aware of why POP is higher for covered calls (CC). With CCs you win when the stock price stays the same, you win when it goes down slightly, you win when the stock goes up. You have two more ways to win than someone who just buys stock, therefore a higher probability of making a buck! Another option: If your stock is going to be called at a loss, or the strike you want to roll to results in a net debit, or your cash funds are short of owning 100x shares and you are familiar with the stock, try writing a naked put for the price you want to buy at. At experation, if the naked put is exercised, your basis is reduced by the premium of the put you sold, and you can write a covered call against the stock you now own. If it expires worthless you keep the premium. This is also another way to increase your POP." }, { "docid": "120611", "title": "", "text": "(Note: I am omitting the currency units. While I strongly suspect it's US$ I don't know from the chart. The system works the same no matter what the currency.) A call or a put is the right to sell (put) or buy (call) shares at a certain price on a certain day. This is why you see a whole range of prices. Not all possible stock values are represented, the number of possibilities has to be kept reasonable. In this case the choices are even units, for an expensive stock they may be spaced even farther apart than this. The top of the chart says it's for June. It's actually the third Friday in the month, June 15th in this case. Thus these are bets on how the stock will move in the next 10 days. While the numbers are per share you can only trade options in lots of 100. The left side of the chart shows calls. Suppose you sell a call at 19 (the top of the chart) The last such trade would have gotten you a premium of 9.70 per share (the flip side of this is when the third friday rolls around it will most likely be exercised and they'll be paying you only 19 a share for a stock now trading at something over 26.) Note the volume, bid and ask columns though--you're not going to get 9.70 for such a call as there is no buyer. The most anybody is offering at present is 7.80 a share. Now, lets look farther down in the chart--say, a strike price of 30. The last trade was only .10--people think it's very unlikely that FB will rise above 30 to make this option worthwhile and thus you get very little for being willing to sell at that price. If FB stays at 26 the option will expire worthless and go away. If it's up to 31 when the 15th rolls around they'll exercise the option, take your shares and pay you 30 for them. Note that you already gave permission for the trade by selling the call, you can't back out later if it becomes a bad deal. Going over to the other side of the chart with the puts: Here the transaction goes the other way, come the 15th they have the option of selling you the shares for the strike price. Lets look at the same values we did before. 19? There's no trading, you can't do it. 30? Here you will collect 3.20 for selling the put. Come the 15th they have the right to sell you the stock for 30 a share. If it's still 26 they're certainly going to do so, but if it's up to 31 it's worthless and you pocket the 3.20 Note that you will normally not be allowed to sell a call if you don't own the shares in question. This is a safety measure as the risk in selling a call without the stock is infinite. If the stock somehow zoomed up to 10,000 when the 15th rolls around you would have to come up with the shares and the only way you could get them is buy them on the open market--you would have to come up with a million dollars. If there simply aren't enough shares available to cover the calls the result is catastrophic--whoever owns the shares simply gets to dictate terms to you. (And in the days of old this sometimes happened.)" }, { "docid": "275199", "title": "", "text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can." }, { "docid": "42438", "title": "", "text": "Options are an indication what a particular segment of the market (those who deal a lot in options) think will happen. (and just because people think that, doesn't mean it will) Bearing in mind however that people writing covered-calls may due so simply as part of a strategy to mitigate downside risk at the expense of limiting upside potential. The presence of more people offering up options is to a degree an indication they are thinking the price will fall or hold steady, since that is in effect the 'bet' they are making. OTOH the people buying those options are making the opposite bet.. so who is to say which will be right. The balance between the two and how it affects the price of the options could be taken as an indication of market sentiment (within the options market) as to the future direction the stock is likely to take. (I just noticed that Blackjack posted the forumula that can be used to model all of this) To address the last part of your question 'does that mean it will go lower' I would say this. The degree to which any of this puts actual pressure on the stock of the underlying instrument is highly debatable, since many (likely most) people trading in a stock never look at what the options for that stock are doing, but base their decision on other factors such as price history, momentum, fundamentals and recent news about the company. To presume that actions in the options market would put pressure on a stock price, you would need to believe that a signficant fraction of the buyers and sellers were paying attention to the options market. Which might be the case for some Quants, but likely not for a lot of other buyers. And it could be argued even then that both groups, those trading options, and those trading stocks, are both looking at the same information to make their predictions of the likely future for the stock, and thus even if there is a correlation between what the stock price does in relation to options, there is no real causality that can be established. We would in fact predict that given access to the same information, both groups would by and large be taking similar parallel actions due to coming to similar conclusions regarding the future price of the stock. What is far MORE likely to pressure the price would be just the shear number of buyers or sellers, and also (especially since repeal of the uptick rule) someone who is trying to actively drive down the price via a lot of shorting at progressively lower prices. (something that is alleged to have been carried out by some hedge fund managers in the course of 'bear raids' on particular companies)" }, { "docid": "388362", "title": "", "text": "\"The other two answers seem basically correct, but I wanted to add on thing: While you can exercise an \"\"American style\"\" option at any time, it's almost never smart to do so before expiration. In your example, when the underlying stock reaches $110, you can theoretically make $2/share by exercising your option (buying 100 shares @ $108/share) and immediately selling those 100 shares back to the market at $110/share. This is all before commission. In more detail, you'll have these practical issues: You are going to have to pay commissions, which means you'll need a bigger spread to make this worthwhile. You and those who have already answered have you finger on this part, but I include it for completeness. (Even at expiration, if the difference between the last close price and the strike price is pretty close, some \"\"in-the-money\"\" options will be allowed to expire unexercised when the holders can't cover the closing commission costs.) The market value of the option contract itself should also go up as the price of the underlying stock goes up. Unless it's very close to expiration, the option contract should have some \"\"time value\"\" in its market price, so, if you want to close your position at this point, earlier then expiration, it will probably be better for you to sell the contract back to the market (for more money and only one commission) than to exercise and then close the stock position (for less money and two commissions). If you want to exercise and then flip the stock back as your exit strategy, you need to be aware of the settlement times. You probably are not going to instantly have those 100 shares of stock credited to your account, so you may not be able to sell them right away, which could leave you subject to some risk of the price changing. Alternatively, you could sell the stock short to lock in the price, but you'll have to be sure that your brokerage account is set up to allow that and understand how to do this.\"" }, { "docid": "236504", "title": "", "text": "What you have to remember is that Options are derivatives of another asset like stocks for example. The price of the Option is derived from the price of the underlying. If the underlying is a stock for example, as the price of the stock moves up and down during the trading day, so will the Market Maker's fair value for the Option. As Options are usually less liquid than the underlying stock, Market Makers are usually more active in 'Providing a Market' with Options. Thus if you place a limit order half way between the current Bid and Ask and the underlying stock price moves towards your limit order, the Market Maker will do their job and 'Provide a Market' at that price, thus executing your order." }, { "docid": "473552", "title": "", "text": "\"You could buy options. I do not know what your time horizon is but it makes all the difference due to theta burn. There are weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly and even longer duration options called leaps. You have decided how long of a time frame. You also have to see what the implied volatility is for the underlying because if you think hypothetically that the price of the spy is 100 dollars currently. Today is hypothetically a Thursday and you buy a weekly option expiring on Friday ( the next day) of strike 100.5 and the call option is priced at .55 cents and you buy it. This means that the underlying has to move .5 dollars in one day to be considered in the money but at time 0, the option should only be worth its intrinsic value which is the underlying, (Say the SPY moved 55 cents up from 100 to 100.55), (100.55) minus the strike (100.5) = 5 cents, so if you payed 55 cents and one day later at expiration its worth 5 cents ,you lost almost 91% of your money, rather with buying and holding you lose a lot less. The leverage is on a 10x scale typically. That is why timing is so important. Anyone can say x stock is going to go up in the future, but if you know ****when**** you can make a killing if it is not already priced into the market. Another thing you can do is figure out how much MSFT contributes to the SPX movement in terms of points. What does a 1% move in MSFT doto SPX. If you can calculate that and you think you know where MSFT is going, you can just trade the spy options synthetically as if it were microsoft. You could also buy msft stock on margin as a retail investor, but be careful. Like Rhaskett said, look into an etf that has microsoft. The nasdaq has a nasdaq-100 which microsoft is in called the triple Q. The ticker is qqq. PowerShares QQQ™, formerly known as \"\"QQQ\"\" or the \"\"NASDAQ- 100 Index Tracking Stock®\"\", is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq-100 Index®. Best of luck and always understand what you are buying before you buy it, JL\"" }, { "docid": "260803", "title": "", "text": "I sell a put for a strike price at the market. The stock rises $50 over the next couple months. I've gotten the premium, but lost the rest of the potential gain, yet had the downside risk the whole time. There's no free lunch. Edit - you can use a BS (Black-Scholes) calculator to create your own back testing. The calculator shows a 1% interest rate, 2% yield, and 15% volatility produce a put price almost identical to the pricing I see for S&P (the SPY ETF, specifically) $205 put. No answer here, including mine, gave any reference to a study. If one exists, it will almost certainly be on an index, not individual stocks. Note that Jack's answer referencing PUTX does exactly that. The SPY ETF and it put options. My suggestion here would, in theory, let you analyze this strategy for individual stock options as well. For SPY - With SPY at 204.40, this is the Put you'd look at - 12 times the premium is $33.36 or 16% the current price. The next part of the exercise is to see how the monthly ups and downs impact this return. A drop to $201 wipes out that month's premium. It happens that it now March 18th, and despite a bad start to the year, we are at break-even YTD. A peek back shows In Dec you picked up $2.87 premium, (1.4% the current price then) but in Jan, it closed for a loss of $12. Ouch. Now, if you started in January, you'd have picked up 2 month's premiums and today or Monday sell the 3rd. You'd have 2.8% profit so far, vs the S&P break even. Last, for now, when selling a naked put, you have to put up margin money. Not sure how much, but I use percent of the value of underlying stock to calculate returns. That choice is debatable, it just keeps percents clean. Else you put up no money and have infinite return." }, { "docid": "118360", "title": "", "text": "First, it depends on your broker. Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing. You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless. As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft. They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications. When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk. If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer. In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads." }, { "docid": "421311", "title": "", "text": "What it means is that the stock has already moved down. Options and other derivatives follow the price of the underlying they are not a precursor to what the underlying is going to do. In other words, the price of a derivative is derived from the underlying." }, { "docid": "69395", "title": "", "text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"" }, { "docid": "55022", "title": "", "text": "The most obvious use of a collateral is as a risk buffer. Just as when you borrow money to buy a house and the bank uses the house as a collateral, so when people borrow money to loan financial instruments (or as is more accurate, gain leverage) the lender keeps a percentage of that (or an equivalent instrument) as a collateral. In the event that the borrower falls short of margin requirements, brokers (in most cases) have the right to sell that collateral and mitigate the risk. Derivatives contracts, like any other financial instrument, come with their risks. And depending on their nature they may sometimes be much more riskier than their underlying instruments. For example, while a common stock's main risk comes from the movements in its price (which may itself result from many other macro/micro-economic factors), an option in that common stock faces risks from those factors plus the volatility of the stock's price. To cover this risk, lenders apply much higher haircuts when lending against these derivatives. In many cases, depending upon the notional exposure of the derivative, that actual dollar amount of the collateral may be more than the face value or the market value of the derivatives contract. Usually, this collateral is deposited not as the derivatives contract itself but rather as the underlying financial instrument (an equity in case of an option, a bond in case of a CDS, and so on). This allows the lender to offset the risk by executing a trade on that collateral itself." }, { "docid": "469382", "title": "", "text": "If you are in the money at expiration you are going to get assigned to the person on the other side of the contract. This is an extremely high probability. The only randomness comes from before expiration. Where you may be assigned because a holder exercised the option before expiration, this can unbalance some of your strategies. But in exchange, you get all the premium that was still left on the option when they exercised. An in the money option, at expiration, has no premium. The value of your in the money option is Current Stock price - Strike Price, for a call. And Strike price - Current Stock price, for a put. Thats why there is no free lunch in this scenario." }, { "docid": "160169", "title": "", "text": "Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself. Of course, you could be wrong in your estimate (too low, and you now have a position that might not become profitable; too high, and you never get in and instead just watch the stock gain in value), but that is not unique to options - if you're bad at estimating value (which is not to be confused with predicting price movement) you're doomed just about whatever you do." }, { "docid": "181924", "title": "", "text": "Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously. It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock. The equality goes both ways. If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs)." }, { "docid": "195152", "title": "", "text": "Put options are contracts to sell. You pay me a fee for the right to put the stock (or other underlying security) in my hands if you want to. That happens on a specific date (the strike date) and a specified price (the strike price). You can decide not to exercise that right, but I must follow through and let you sell it to me if you want to. Put options can be used by the purchaser to cap losses. For example: You purchase a PUT option for GE Oct19 13.00 from me. On October 19th, you can make me let you sell your GE stock to me for $13.00 a share. If the price for GE has fallen to $12.00, that would be a good idea. If its now at $15.00 a share, you will probably keep the GE or sell it at the current market price. Call options are contracts to buy. The same idea only in the other direction: You pay me a fee for the right to call the stock away from me. Calls also have a strike date and strike price. Like a put, you can choose not to exercises it. You can choose to buy the stock from me (on the strike date for the strike price), but I have to let you buy it from me if you want to. For example: You purchase a CALL option for GE Oct19 16.00 option from me. On October 19th, you can buy my GE stock from me for $16.00 a share. If the current price is $17.50, you should make me let you buy if from me for $16.00. If its less than $16.00, you could by it at the current market price for less. Commonly, options are for a block of 100 shares of the underlying security. Note: this is a general description. Options can be very complicated. The fee you pay for the option and the transaction fees associated with the shares affects whether or not exercising is financially beneficial. Options can be VERY RISKY. You can loose all your money as there is no innate value in the option, only how it relates to the underlying security. Before your brokerage will let you trade, there are disclosures you must read and affirm that you understand the risk." } ]

[ { "docid": "232261", "title": "", "text": "\"When you buy a put on a stock, you buy the right to sell the stock at fixed price, F, that his usually different from the market price, M. You paid a price, P, for the put. Your potential profit, going forward, is represented by the DIFFERENCE you get to collect between your fixed price F, and that market price M, plus the price you paid for the put, or F-(M+P). (This assumes that F>(M+P). P is fixed, but the smaller M gets, the larger the term F-(M+P), and therefore the higher your potential profit from owning the put. So when M \"\"tanks,\"\" the put goes higher. The $395 put is already in the money. If it were settled today, the value would be $395-$376 or $19. This, minus the cost of the put itself, represents your profit. The $365 put is \"\"out of the money.\"\" The stock has to fall $11 more before the put is exercised. But if the stock went down 8 points today, that is less than the $19 difference at the start of the day. Because there is time between now and October, there is a chance for the stock to go down further, thereby going into the money. The current value of the put is represented by this \"\"chance.\"\" Obviously, the chances of the stock going down $11 more (from today) is greater than the chance of it going down $19 more. On the other hand, the closer it gets to the expiration date, the less an out of the money put is worth. It's a race between the stock's fall, and the time to expiration.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "212025", "title": "", "text": "The difference is whether your options qualify as incentive stock options (ISOs), or whether they are non-qualifying options. If your options meet all of the criteria for being ISOs (see here), then (a) you are not taxed when you exercise the options. You treat the sale of the underlying stock as a long term capital gain, with the basis being the exercise price (S). There is something about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as they pertain to these kinds of options. Calculating your AMT basically means that your ISOs are treated as non-qualifying options. So if your exercise bumps you into AMT territory, too bad, so sad. If you exercise earlier, you do get a clock ticking, as you put it, because one of the caveats of having your options qualify as ISOs is that you hold the underlying stock (a) at least two years after you were granted the options and (b) at least one year after you exercise the options." }, { "docid": "315748", "title": "", "text": "When dividend is announced the stock and option price may react to that news, but the actual payout of the dividend on the ex-dividend date is what you probably are referring to. The dividend payout affects the stock price on the ex-dividend date as the stock price will drop by the amount of paid out dividend (not taking into account other factors). This in turn drives the prices of all options. The amount of change in the option price for this event is not only dependent the dividend payout, but also on how far these are in our out of the money and what there time to expiration is. The price of a call option that is far out of the money would react less than the price of a put that would be far in the money. Therefore I would argue that these two will not necessarily offset each other." }, { "docid": "176161", "title": "", "text": "\"To understand the VXX ETF, you need to understand VIX futures, to understand VIX futures you need to understand VIX, to understand VIX you need to understand options pricing formulas such as the \"\"Black Scholes\"\" formula Those are your prerequisites. Learn at your own pace. Short Answer: When you buy VXX you are buying the underlying are front month VIX futures. Limited by the supply of the ETF's NAV (Net Asset Value) units. It is assumed that the ETF manager is actually buying and selling more VIX front month futures to back the underlying ETF. Long Answer: Assume nobody knows what an options contract should be worth. Therefore formulas have been devised to standardize how to price an options contract. The Black-Scholes formula is widely used, one of the variables in this formula is \"\"Implied Volatility\"\", which basically accounts for the mispricing of options when the other variables (Intrinsic Value, delta, gamma, theta...) don't completely explain how much the option is worth. People are willing to pay more for options when the perception is that they will be more profitable, \"\"implied volatility\"\" tracks these changes in an option's demand, where the rest of the black-scholes formula creates a price for an option that will always be the same. Each stock in the market that also trades standardized options will have implied volatility which can be computed from the price of those options. The \"\"Volatility Index\"\" (VIX), looks at the implied volatility of MANY STOCK's options contracts. Specifically the \"\"implied volatility of out the money puts on the S&P 500\"\". If you don't know what that quoted part of the sentence means, then you have at least five other individual questions to ask before you re-read this answer and understand the relevance of these followup questions: Why would people buy out-the-money puts on the S&P 500? Why would people pay more for out-the-money puts on the S&P 500 on some days and pay less for them on other days? This is really the key to the whole puzzle. Anyway, now that we have this data, people wanted to speculate on the future value of the VIX. So VIX futures contracts began trading and with it there came a liquid market. There doesn't need to be anything physical to back a financial product anymore. A lot of people don't trade futures, retail investors have practically only heard of \"\"the stock market\"\". So one investment bank decided to make a fund that only holds VIX futures that expire within a month. (front month futures). They split that fund up into shares and listed it on the stock market, like alchemy the VXX was formed. Volatility studies are fascinating, and get way more complex than this now that the VXX ETF also has liquid options contracts trading on it too, and there are leveraged VIX ETF funds that also trade options\"" }, { "docid": "5257", "title": "", "text": "The different levels are somewhat related to levels of risk. Writing a covered call is pretty low risk, in the sense that if I buy the stock but sell a call, I now have a lower cost for the stock, and however low the stock drops, I'm still slightly better off than the regular stock buyer. Covered call writing is often used to generate premium income from a stock portfolio, and less as a tool for speculation. Buying a call or put is simpler in execution, but the risk of losing the entire amount spent (I actually avoid the word invested here) due to leverage involved isn't just a possibility — it can be pretty likely depending on the strike price. Put writing and uncovered (naked) call writing can entail even higher risk relative to the premium received — consider extreme moves in the underlying to understand the potential losses involved. The more sophisticated trades are presumed to take a bit more experience and tolerance for risk and each broker has its own set of criteria to allow the client to trade at each level." }, { "docid": "387801", "title": "", "text": "In the scenario you describe, and really, in any scenario, by the nature of how option contracts work: a higher strike put will necessarily be more expensive than the lower strike put (everything else being equal). the lower strike call will necessarily be more expensive than the higher strike call (everything else being equal). In put options, the buyer has the right to sell stock for the strike price. So the higher the strike price, the more money the buyer of the put option can make by selling the shares of stock at a higher price. In call options, it's the exact opposite: buyers of the call option have the right to buy stock at the strike price. The lower the strike price, the better for the buyer: they have the right to buy stock for a lower amount of money. So it must be worth more." }, { "docid": "275199", "title": "", "text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can." }, { "docid": "345851", "title": "", "text": "\"Cart's answer describes well one aspects of puts: protective puts; which means using puts as insurance against a decline in the price of shares that you own. That's a popular use of puts. But I think the wording of your question is angling for another strategy: Writing puts. Consider: Cart's strategy refers to the buyer of a put. But, on the transaction's other side is a seller of the put – and ultimately somebody created or wrote that put contract in the first place! That first seller of the put – that is, the seller that isn't just selling one they themselves bought – is the put writer. When you write a put, you are taking on the obligation to buy the other side's stock at the put exercise price if the stock price falls below that exercise price by the expiry date. For taking on the obligation, you receive a premium, like how an insurance company charges a premium to insure against a loss. Example: Imagine ABC Co. stock is trading at $25.00. You write a put contract agreeing to buy 100 shares of ABC at $20.00 per share (the exercise price) by a given expiration date. Say you receive $2.00/share premium from the put buyer. You now have the obligation to purchase the shares from the put buyer in the event they are below $20.00 per share when the option expires – or, technically any time before then, if the buyer chooses to exercise the option early. Assuming no early assignment, one of two things will happen at the option expiration date: ABC trades at or above $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will expire worthless in the hands of the put buyer. You will have pocketed the $200 and be absolved from your obligation. This case, where ABC trades above the exercise price, is the maximum profit potential. ABC trades below $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will be assigned and you'll need to fork over $2000 to the put buyer in exchange for his 100 ABC shares. If those shares are worth less than $18.00 in the market, then you've suffered a loss to the extent they are below that price (times 100), because remember – you pocketed $200 premium in the first place. If the shares are between $18.00 to $20.00, you're still profitable, but not to the full extent of the premium received. You can see that by having written a put it's possible to acquire ABC stock at a price lower than the market price – because you received some premium in the process of writing your put. If you don't \"\"succeed\"\" in acquiring shares on your first write (because the shares didn't get below the exercise price), you can continue to write puts and collect premium until you do get assigned. I have read the book \"\"Money for Nothing (And Your Stocks for FREE!)\"\" by Canadian author Derek Foster. Despite the flashy title, the book essentially describes Derek's strategy for writing puts against dividend-paying value stocks he would love to own. Derek picks quality companies that pay a dividend, and uses put writing to get in at lower-than-market prices. Four Pillars reviewed the book and interviewed Derek Foster: Money for Nothing: Book Review and Interview with Derek Foster. Writing puts entails risk. If the stock price drops to zero then you'll end up paying the put exercise price to acquire worthless shares! So your down-side can easily be multiples of the premium collected. Don't do this until and unless you understand exactly how this works. It's advanced. Note also that your broker isn't likely to permit you to write puts without having sufficient cash or margin in your account to cover the case where you are forced to buy the stock. You're better off having cash to secure your put buys, otherwise you may be forced into leverage (borrowing) when assigned. Additional Resources: The Montreal Exchange options guide (PDF) that Cart already linked to is an excellent free resource for learning about options. Refer to page 39, \"\"Writing secured put options\"\", for the strategy above. Other major options exchanges and organizations also provide high-quality free learning material:\"" }, { "docid": "195152", "title": "", "text": "Put options are contracts to sell. You pay me a fee for the right to put the stock (or other underlying security) in my hands if you want to. That happens on a specific date (the strike date) and a specified price (the strike price). You can decide not to exercise that right, but I must follow through and let you sell it to me if you want to. Put options can be used by the purchaser to cap losses. For example: You purchase a PUT option for GE Oct19 13.00 from me. On October 19th, you can make me let you sell your GE stock to me for $13.00 a share. If the price for GE has fallen to $12.00, that would be a good idea. If its now at $15.00 a share, you will probably keep the GE or sell it at the current market price. Call options are contracts to buy. The same idea only in the other direction: You pay me a fee for the right to call the stock away from me. Calls also have a strike date and strike price. Like a put, you can choose not to exercises it. You can choose to buy the stock from me (on the strike date for the strike price), but I have to let you buy it from me if you want to. For example: You purchase a CALL option for GE Oct19 16.00 option from me. On October 19th, you can buy my GE stock from me for $16.00 a share. If the current price is $17.50, you should make me let you buy if from me for $16.00. If its less than $16.00, you could by it at the current market price for less. Commonly, options are for a block of 100 shares of the underlying security. Note: this is a general description. Options can be very complicated. The fee you pay for the option and the transaction fees associated with the shares affects whether or not exercising is financially beneficial. Options can be VERY RISKY. You can loose all your money as there is no innate value in the option, only how it relates to the underlying security. Before your brokerage will let you trade, there are disclosures you must read and affirm that you understand the risk." }, { "docid": "120611", "title": "", "text": "(Note: I am omitting the currency units. While I strongly suspect it's US$ I don't know from the chart. The system works the same no matter what the currency.) A call or a put is the right to sell (put) or buy (call) shares at a certain price on a certain day. This is why you see a whole range of prices. Not all possible stock values are represented, the number of possibilities has to be kept reasonable. In this case the choices are even units, for an expensive stock they may be spaced even farther apart than this. The top of the chart says it's for June. It's actually the third Friday in the month, June 15th in this case. Thus these are bets on how the stock will move in the next 10 days. While the numbers are per share you can only trade options in lots of 100. The left side of the chart shows calls. Suppose you sell a call at 19 (the top of the chart) The last such trade would have gotten you a premium of 9.70 per share (the flip side of this is when the third friday rolls around it will most likely be exercised and they'll be paying you only 19 a share for a stock now trading at something over 26.) Note the volume, bid and ask columns though--you're not going to get 9.70 for such a call as there is no buyer. The most anybody is offering at present is 7.80 a share. Now, lets look farther down in the chart--say, a strike price of 30. The last trade was only .10--people think it's very unlikely that FB will rise above 30 to make this option worthwhile and thus you get very little for being willing to sell at that price. If FB stays at 26 the option will expire worthless and go away. If it's up to 31 when the 15th rolls around they'll exercise the option, take your shares and pay you 30 for them. Note that you already gave permission for the trade by selling the call, you can't back out later if it becomes a bad deal. Going over to the other side of the chart with the puts: Here the transaction goes the other way, come the 15th they have the option of selling you the shares for the strike price. Lets look at the same values we did before. 19? There's no trading, you can't do it. 30? Here you will collect 3.20 for selling the put. Come the 15th they have the right to sell you the stock for 30 a share. If it's still 26 they're certainly going to do so, but if it's up to 31 it's worthless and you pocket the 3.20 Note that you will normally not be allowed to sell a call if you don't own the shares in question. This is a safety measure as the risk in selling a call without the stock is infinite. If the stock somehow zoomed up to 10,000 when the 15th rolls around you would have to come up with the shares and the only way you could get them is buy them on the open market--you would have to come up with a million dollars. If there simply aren't enough shares available to cover the calls the result is catastrophic--whoever owns the shares simply gets to dictate terms to you. (And in the days of old this sometimes happened.)" }, { "docid": "176883", "title": "", "text": "\"A 'Call' gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy a stock at a particular price. The price, called the \"\"strike price\"\" is fixed when you buy the option. Let's run through an example - AAPL trades @ $259. You think it's going up over the next year, and you decide to buy the $280 Jan11 call for $12. Here are the details of this trade. Your cost is $1200 as options are traded on 100 shares each. You start to have the potential to make money only as Apple rises above $280 and the option trades \"\"in the money.\"\" It would take a move to $292 for you to break even, but after that, you are making $100 for each dollar it goes higher. At $300, your $1200 would be worth $2000, for example. A 16% move on the stock and a 67% increase on your money. On the other hand, if the stock doesn't rise enough by January 2011, you lose it all. A couple points here - American options are traded at any time. If the stock goes up next week, your $1200 may be worth $1500 and you can sell. If the option is not \"\"in the money\"\" its value is pure time value. There have been claims made that most options expire worthless. This of course is nonsense, you can see there will always be options with a strike below the price of the stock at expiration and those options are \"\"in the money.\"\" Of course, we don't know what those options were traded at. On the other end of this trade is the option seller. If he owns Apple, the sale is called a \"\"covered call\"\" and he is basically saying he's ok if the stock goes up enough that the buyer will get his shares for that price. For him, he knows that he'll get $292 (the $280, plus the option sale of $12) for a stock that is only $259 today. If the stock stays under $280, he just pocketed $12, 4.6% of the stock value, in just 3 months. This is why call writing can be a decent strategy for some investors. Especially if the market goes down, you can think of it as the investor lowering his cost by that $12. This particular strategy works best in a flat to down market. Of course in a fast rising market, the seller misses out on potentially high gains. (I'll call it quits here, just to say a Put is the mirror image, you have the right to sell a stock at a given price. It's the difference similar to shorting a stock as opposed to buying it.) If you have a follow up question - happy to help. EDIT - Apple closed on Jan 21, 2011 at $326.72, the $280 call would have been worth $46.72 vs the purchase price of $12. Nearly 4X return (A 289% gain) in just over 4 months for a stock move of 26%. This is the leverage you can have with options. Any stock could just as easily trade flat to down, and the entire option premium, lost.\"" }, { "docid": "569565", "title": "", "text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"" }, { "docid": "214003", "title": "", "text": "\"For personal investing, and speculative/ highly risky securities (\"\"wasting assets\"\", which is exactly what options are), it is better to think in terms of sunk costs. Don't chase this trade, trying to make your money back. You should minimize your loss. Unwind the position now, while there is still some remaining value in those call options, and take a short-term loss. Or, you could try this. Let's say you own an exchange traded call option on a listed stock (very general case). I don't know how much time remains before the option's expiration date. Be that as it may, I could suggest this to effect a \"\"recovery\"\". You'll be long the call and short the stock. This is called a delta hedge, as you would be delta trading the stock. Delta refers to short-term price volatility. In other words, you'll short a single large block of the stock, then buy shares, in small increments, whenever the market drops slightly, on an intra-day basis. When the market price of the stock rises incrementally, you'll sell a few shares. Back and forth, in response to short-term market price moves, while maintaining a static \"\"hedge ratio\"\". As your original call option gets closer to maturity, roll it over into the next available contract, either one-month, or preferably three-month, time to expiration. If you don't want to, or can't, borrow the underlying stock to short, you could do a synthetic short. A synthetic short is a combination of a long put and a short call, whose pay-off replicates the short stock payoff. I personally would never purchase an unhedged option or warrant. But since that is what you own right now, you have two choices: Get out, or dig in deeper, with the realization that you are doing a lot of work just to trade your way back to a net zero P&L. *While you can make a profit using this sort of strategy, I'm not certain if that is within the scope of the money.stachexchange.com website.\"" }, { "docid": "194605", "title": "", "text": "There are a few situations in which it may be advantageous to exercise early. Wikipedia actually has a good explanation: Option Style, Difference in value To account for the American's higher value there must be some situations in which it is optimal to exercise the American option before the expiration date. This can arise in several ways, such as: An in the money (ITM) call option on a stock is often exercised just before the stock pays a dividend that would lower its value by more than the option's remaining time value. A put option will usually be exercised early if the underlying asset files for bankruptcy.[3] A deep ITM currency option (FX option) where the strike currency has a lower interest rate than the currency to be received will often be exercised early because the time value sacrificed is less valuable than the expected depreciation of the received currency against the strike. An American bond option on the dirty price of a bond (such as some convertible bonds) may be exercised immediately if ITM and a coupon is due. A put option on gold will be exercised early when deep ITM, because gold tends to hold its value whereas the currency used as the strike is often expected to lose value through inflation if the holder waits until final maturity to exercise the option (they will almost certainly exercise a contract deep ITM, minimizing its time value).[citation needed]" }, { "docid": "12432", "title": "", "text": "\"The blue line is illustrating the net profit or loss the investor will realise according to how the price of the underlying asset settles at expiry. The x-axis represents the underlying asset price. The y-axis represents the profit or loss. In the first case, the investor has a \"\"naked put write\"\" position, having sold a put option. The strike price of the put is marked as \"\"A\"\" on the x-axis. The maximum profit possible is equal to the total premium received when the option contract was sold. This is represented by that portion of the blue line that is horizontal and extending from the point above that point marked \"\"A\"\" on the x-axis. This corresponds to the case that the price of the underlying asset settles at or above the strike price on the day of expiry. If the underlying asset settles at a price less than the strike price on the day of expiry, then the option with be \"\"in the money\"\". Therefore the net settlement value will move from a profit to a loss, depending on how far in the money the option is upon expiry. This is represented by the diagonal line moving from above the \"\"A\"\" point on the x-axis and moving from a profit to a loss on the y-axis. The diagonal line crosses the x-axis at the point where the underlying asset price is equal to \"\"A\"\" minus the original premium rate at which the option was written - i.e., net profit = zero. In the second case, the investor has sold a put option with a strike price of \"\"B\"\" and purchase a put option with a strike price \"\"A\"\", where A is less than B. Here, the reasoning is similar to the first example, however since a put option has been purchase this will limit the potential losses should the underlying asset move down strongly in value. The horizontal line above the x-axis marks the maximum profit while the horizontal line below the x-axis marks the maximum loss. Note that the horizontal line above the x-axis is closer to the x-axis that is the horizontal line below the x-axis. This is because the maximum profit is equal to the premium received for selling the put option minus the premium payed for buying the put option at a lower strike price. Losses are limited since any loss in excess of the strike price \"\"A\"\" plus the premium payed for the put purchased at a strike price of \"\"A\"\" is covered by the profit made on the purchased put option at a strike price of \"\"A\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "11311", "title": "", "text": "\"Why only long term investments? What do they care if I buy and sell shares in a company in the same year? Simple, your actually investing when you hold it for a long term. If you hold a stock for a week or a month there is very little that can happen to change the price, in a perfect market the value of a company should stay the same from yesterday to today so long as there is no news(a perfect market cannot exist). When you hold a stock for a long term you really are investing in the company and saying \"\"this company will grow\"\". Short term investing is mostly speculation and speculation causes securities to be incorrectly valued. So when a retail investor puts money into something like Facebook for example they can easily be burned by speculation whether its to the upside or downside. If the goal is to get me to invest my money, then why not give apply capital gains tax to my savings account at my local bank? Or a CD account? I believe your gains on these accounts are taxed... Not sure at what rate. If the goal is to help the overall health of business, how does it do that? During an IPO, the business certainly raises money, but after that I'm just buying and selling shares with other private shareholders. Why does the government give me an incentive to do this (and then hold onto it for at least a year)? There are many reasons why a company cares about its market price: A companies market cap is calculated by price * shares outstanding. A market cap is basically what the market is saying your company is worth. A company can offer more shares or sell shares they currently hold in order to raise even more capital. A company can offer shares instead of cash when buying out another company. It can pay for many things with shares. Many executives and top level employees are payed with stock options, so they defiantly want to see there price higher. these are some basic reasons but there are more and they can be more complex.\"" }, { "docid": "352894", "title": "", "text": "\"Offtopic, but what do you think of the idea of the stock market being a \"\"ponzi scheme\"\"? I've had this same idea that [Mark Cuban reiterated well by writing](http://blogmaverick.com/2008/09/08/talking-stocks-and-money/): &gt;Ive said a lot of this before. The stock market is by definition a ponzi scheme. As long as money keeps on coming in, then there is someone to take the stocks from the sellers. If the amount of money coming in is reduced, the stocks, indexes, et al go down. What if, for who knows whatever reason, the amount of money going into stocks declined significantly ? Who would buy stock from the sellers. I mean goodness gracious, you could see something disastrous happen. Like the Nasdaq dropping from 5000, to under 2000 in just a few years. Its happened before, it can happen again. &gt; &gt;Which is exactly why we get all these nonsensical commercials from brokerages. To keep the money coming in . I wish someone would index the amount of money spent on marketing by mutual funds and brokerages to the Nasdaq and Dow and see if it correlates. &gt; &gt;Money inflows drives the business. We can get all the economic data we ever dreamed of getting, but if money inflows declined significantly for an extended period of time, then every rule of thumb would go out the window until money started flowing in. Yes it would flow in eventually as prices dropped. From big investors like me who wouldnt have gotten hurt by a huge market decline and could come in and buy huge chunks, or companies outright. &gt; &gt;You ? You probably would be like Charles Ponzi’s customers. You wouldnt be able to get your money out of the fund when it went down, and by the time you did, it would be too late. You would have been crushed. &gt; &gt;Ive said it before, a stock that doesnt pay dividends is valued like a baseball card. Just whatever you can sell it for. The concept that you own “your share” of the company is a joke. You are completely at the whim of the CEO and board who will dilute you on a daily basis with stock options, then try to buy back stock to cover it up and push up the price, rewarding the shareholders who get out, rather than those that continue to hold the shares. Meaning you. &gt; &gt;Have you ever seen Warren Buffet talk about buying 100 shares of anything k shares ? or does he take control of , or purchase a material percentage of a company ? &gt; &gt;If you have enough money to have influence , take control or buy it outright, then the stock market can work for you. Thats why I buy stock in public companies that relate to my other business entities. When i pick up the phone and call the CEO of a company i own shares in, they call me back very quickly. When I ask if there are business opportunities that make sense for the company and another company of mine to work together, I wont always get the business, but I will always get a meeting. If Im smart about the investments I make, the more important returns come from the relationships with the companies than the action of the stock. &gt; &gt;If the best you can do is buy shares that are going to be continuously diluted, then you are merely a sucker. There is a good chance that the shares you bought came from shares an insider who got stock options. You just helped dilute yourself with your first share purchase. &gt; &gt;The wealthy can make the stockmarket work for them. Individuals buying shares of stock in non dividend paying stocks… they work for the stockmarket. &gt; &gt;I know Ive painted a pretty bleak picture. &gt; &gt;The stockmarket isnt going away. Would it shock me if the whole thing collapsed ? yes. it would. Its just too engrained in our way of life in the USA. What would change my mind is if a better investment vehicle came along. &gt; &gt;The stockmarket used to be about investing capital in companies that came public or did secondary offerings. That money was used to create amazing businesses and return dividends back to people who truly were investors. There once was a day where most companies paid dividends higher than the interest rates on their bonds. Why ? Because stocks are inherently more risky. If a company goes belly up, bondholders collect first, shareholders usually last. People could buy and hold stocks, and get paid real cash money for being a shareholder in the company at rates far higher than the divident yields we see today. If the company did well, the dividends went up. Investors who held, actually got all their money back in dividends at some point and the rest was gravy. The good ole days. &gt; &gt;But that changed when mutual funds came along and started marketing the concept of growth as a way to attract investors. &gt; &gt;Its not inconceivable that the old mindset could comeback. That a new market of stocks could be created where companies didnt continuously dilute shareholders by issuing stock and options to themselves. Where earnings were earned for the same reason they are in private companies, to not only fund growth, but also provide cash back to investors. Now if that market existed today. Where I could buy 100 shares of stock, and even if it represented just 1/100000 of ownership in the company, I could have confidence that year after year, I would still own 1/100000th of that company, and if that company generated earnings , I would have at least some of that money returned to me. Well then, that wouldnt be a ponzi scheme. That would be a true market of stocks, and I would be happy to recommend to anyone to be careful, but buying stocks in that market could be something worth considering if your appetite for risk canhandle it.\"" }, { "docid": "470226", "title": "", "text": "Apple closed Friday 9/23 at $403.40. This is what the Puts look like, note the 2013 expiration. (The rest is hypothetical, I am not advising this.) As a fan of Apple and feeling the stock may stay flat but won't tank, I sell you the $400 put for $64.65. In effect I am saying that I am ready willing and able to buy aapl for $400 (well, $40,000 for 100 shares) and I have enough margin in my account to do so, $20,000. If Apple keeps going up, I made my $6465 (again it's 100 shares) but no more. If it drops below $400, I only begin to lose money if it goes below $335.35. You, the put buyer are betting it will drop by this amount (more than 15% from today) and are willing to pay the price for this Put today." }, { "docid": "469382", "title": "", "text": "If you are in the money at expiration you are going to get assigned to the person on the other side of the contract. This is an extremely high probability. The only randomness comes from before expiration. Where you may be assigned because a holder exercised the option before expiration, this can unbalance some of your strategies. But in exchange, you get all the premium that was still left on the option when they exercised. An in the money option, at expiration, has no premium. The value of your in the money option is Current Stock price - Strike Price, for a call. And Strike price - Current Stock price, for a put. Thats why there is no free lunch in this scenario." }, { "docid": "372417", "title": "", "text": "\"Here are some things to consider if you want to employ a covered call strategy for consistent returns. The discussion also applies to written puts, as they're functionally equivalent. Write covered calls only on fairly valued stock. If the stock is distinctly undervalued, just buy it. By writing the call, you cap the gains that it will achieve as the stock price gravitates to intrinsic value. If the stock is overvalued, sell it, or just stay away. As the owner of a covered call position, you have full exposure to the downside of the stock. The premium received is normally way too small to protect against much of a drop in price. The ideal candidate doesn't change in price much over the life of the position. Yes, this is low volatility, which brings low option premiums. As a seller you want high premiums. But this can't be judged in a vacuum. No matter how high the volatility in absolute terms, as a seller you're betting the market has overpriced volatility. If volatility is high, so premiums are fat, but the market is correct, then the very real risk of the stock dropping over the life of the position offsets the premium received. One thing to look at is current implied volatility for the at-the-money (ATM), near-month call. Compare it to the two-year historical volatility (Morningstar has this conveniently displayed). Moving away from pure volatility, consider writing calls about three months out, just slightly out of the money. The premium is all time value, and the time value decay accelerates in the final few months. (In theory, a series of one-month options would be higher time value, but there are frictional costs, and no guarantee that today's \"\"good deal\"\" will be repeatable twelve time per year.) When comparing various strikes and expirations, compare time value per day. To compare the same statistic across multiple companies, use time value per day as a percent of capital at risk. CaR is the price of the stock less the premium received. If you already own the stock, track it as if you just bought it for this strategy, so use the price on the day you wrote the call. Along with time value per day, compare the simple annualized percent return, again, on capital at risk, measuring the return if a) the stock is called away, and b) the stock remains unchanged. I usually concentrate more on the second scenario, as we get the capital gain on the stock regardless, without the option strategy. Ideally, you can also calculate the probability (based on implied volatility) of the stock achieving these price points by expiration. Measuring returns at many possible stock prices, you can develop an overall expected return. I won't go into further detail, as it seems outside the scope here. Finally, I usually target a minimum of 25% annualized if the stock remains unchanged. You can, of course, adjust this up or down depending on your risk tolerance. I consider this to be conservative.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "445526", "title": "", "text": "Options pricing is based on the gap between strike and the current market, and volatility. That's why the VIX, a commonly accepted volatility index, is actually just a weighted blend of S&P 500 future options prices. A general rise in the price of options indicates people don't know whether it will go up or down next, and are therefore less willing to take that risk. But your question is why everything underwater in the puts chain went higher, and that's simple: now that Apple's down, the probability of falling a few more points is higher. Especially since Apple has gone through some recent rough times, and stocks in general are seen as risky these days." } ]

[ { "docid": "388362", "title": "", "text": "\"The other two answers seem basically correct, but I wanted to add on thing: While you can exercise an \"\"American style\"\" option at any time, it's almost never smart to do so before expiration. In your example, when the underlying stock reaches $110, you can theoretically make $2/share by exercising your option (buying 100 shares @ $108/share) and immediately selling those 100 shares back to the market at $110/share. This is all before commission. In more detail, you'll have these practical issues: You are going to have to pay commissions, which means you'll need a bigger spread to make this worthwhile. You and those who have already answered have you finger on this part, but I include it for completeness. (Even at expiration, if the difference between the last close price and the strike price is pretty close, some \"\"in-the-money\"\" options will be allowed to expire unexercised when the holders can't cover the closing commission costs.) The market value of the option contract itself should also go up as the price of the underlying stock goes up. Unless it's very close to expiration, the option contract should have some \"\"time value\"\" in its market price, so, if you want to close your position at this point, earlier then expiration, it will probably be better for you to sell the contract back to the market (for more money and only one commission) than to exercise and then close the stock position (for less money and two commissions). If you want to exercise and then flip the stock back as your exit strategy, you need to be aware of the settlement times. You probably are not going to instantly have those 100 shares of stock credited to your account, so you may not be able to sell them right away, which could leave you subject to some risk of the price changing. Alternatively, you could sell the stock short to lock in the price, but you'll have to be sure that your brokerage account is set up to allow that and understand how to do this.\"" }, { "docid": "259560", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation. Suppose the vested shares are worth X. If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment? Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately). Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y. You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment? If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as \"\"income\"\" and invest it however you see fit.\"" }, { "docid": "194030", "title": "", "text": "\"Why do people keep talking about 401K's at work? That is NOT dollar cost averaging. DCA refers to when you have a large sum of money. Do you invest it all at once or spread it out over several smaller purchases over a period of time? There really isn't a \"\"when\"\" should I use it. It is simply a matter of where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. DCA has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a tradeoff. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\"" }, { "docid": "488009", "title": "", "text": "$15 - $5 = $10 How did you possibly buy a put for less than the intrinsic value of the option, at $8.25 So we can infer that you would have had to get this put when the stock price was AT LEAST $6.75, but given the 3 months of theta left, it was likely above $7 The value of the put if the price of the underlying asset (the stock ABC) meandered between $5 - $7 would be somewhere between $10 - $8 at expiration. So you don't really stand to lose much in this scenario, and can make a decent gain in this scenario. I mean decent if you were trading stocks and were trying to beat the S&P or keep up with Warren Buffett, but a pretty poor gain since you are trading options! If the stock moves above $7 this is where the put starts to substantially lose value." }, { "docid": "525390", "title": "", "text": "\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\"" }, { "docid": "471978", "title": "", "text": "\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"" }, { "docid": "501504", "title": "", "text": "What financial instruments are there that are profitable when an underlying assets falls? The instrument you are looking for is called an Option, specifically a Put Option. It allows you, within the validity date, to sell ('Put') the respective shares to the option giver, at the predefined Strike Price. For example, let's assume APPL trades currently at 100 $ per share, and you think they will go down a lot. You buy one Put Option for 100 shares (they always come for larger amounts like 100s) for a Strike Price of 90 $, and pay 5 $ for it (it would be cheap if nobody believes they will fall that much). Note the last sentence under 2. - it is rather easy and very common when trading options to make complete losses. You have been warned. Are they available for IPOs? They could be available for IPOs, even before the IPO. However, someone has to put them out (some large bank, typically), which is some effort, and they would only do that if they expect enough interest and volume in the trade. most of the time, there will be no such options on the market. Are they available for foreign stocks?Yes, but again only selectively - only if the stock is well known and interesting enough for a broad audience." }, { "docid": "470226", "title": "", "text": "Apple closed Friday 9/23 at $403.40. This is what the Puts look like, note the 2013 expiration. (The rest is hypothetical, I am not advising this.) As a fan of Apple and feeling the stock may stay flat but won't tank, I sell you the $400 put for $64.65. In effect I am saying that I am ready willing and able to buy aapl for $400 (well, $40,000 for 100 shares) and I have enough margin in my account to do so, $20,000. If Apple keeps going up, I made my $6465 (again it's 100 shares) but no more. If it drops below $400, I only begin to lose money if it goes below $335.35. You, the put buyer are betting it will drop by this amount (more than 15% from today) and are willing to pay the price for this Put today." }, { "docid": "519781", "title": "", "text": "\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \"\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\"\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\"" }, { "docid": "134689", "title": "", "text": "Not to be a jerk, since I'm learning about options myself, but I think you have a few things wrong about your tesla put postion. First, assuming it was itm or atm within a week of strike it would maybe be worth $12-15, I glanced at the 11/10 put strikes ~325 trades for $12.65 https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/TSLA/options?expiration=2017-11-10 The closer it gets to expiry theta decay reduces put value significantly, the 325's that expire tomorrow are only worth $2.60. Expecting TSLA to drop from 325 to 50 a share by Jan has a .006% chance of occuring according to the current delta. It's a lottery ticket at best. _____ Lastly the $50 price is the expected share price at the date of expiry. The price you pay is 57c for the options. So in order to get to your 494k number TSLA would need to decline $50 dollars to a price of 275 a share. You wouldn't want to buy 50 dollar puts, just the 275 puts, provided it declines very quickly. EDIT: I was looking at the recent expiration to get an idea of atm or itm prices, since it's not like you would hold to expiration. Also the Jan has a 0.6% chance of hitting 50, not .006%. That said what I've noticed when things start to slide is that puts have a weird way of pricing themselves. For example when something gradually goes up all of the calls go up down the chain through time frames, but puts do not in the same fashion. Further out lower priced puts won't move nearly as much unless the company is basically headed for bankruptcy." }, { "docid": "118633", "title": "", "text": "\"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\"" }, { "docid": "230666", "title": "", "text": "There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company. These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts. Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts. An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio. As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish. Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss). Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff. If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them. Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place. Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both:" }, { "docid": "591229", "title": "", "text": "I would make a change to the answer from olchauvin: If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the value of call options will go up. So if you still think that options prices will go up, then a sell-off in the stock may be a good point to buy more calls for cheaper. It would be your call at that point (no pun intended). Here is some theory which may help. An options trader in a bank would say that the value of a call option can go up for two reasons: The VIX index is a measure of the levels of implied volatility, so you could intuitively say that when you trade options you are taking a view on two components: the underlying stock, and the level of the VIX index. Importantly, as you get closer to the expiry date this second effect diminishes: big jumps up in the VIX will produce smaller increases in the value of the call option. Taking this point to its limit, at maturity the value of the call option is only dependent on the price of the underlying stock. An options trader would say that the vega of a call option decreases as it gets closer to expiry. A consequence of this is that if pure options traders are naturally less inclined to buy and hold to expiry (because otherwise they would really just be taking a view on the stock price rather than the stock price & the implied volatility surface). Trading options without thinking too much about implied volatities is of course a valid strategy -- maybe you just use them because you will automatically have a mechanism which limits losses on your positions. But I am just trying to give you an impression of the bigger picture." }, { "docid": "569565", "title": "", "text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"" }, { "docid": "273598", "title": "", "text": "Long convexity is achieved by owning long dated low delta options. When a significant move occurs in the underlying the volatility curve will move higher. Instead of a linear relationship between your long position and it's return, you receive a multiple of the linear return. For example: Share price $50 Long 1 (equals 100 shares) contract of a 2 year 100 call Assume this is a 5 delta option If the stock price rises to $70 the delta of the option will rise because it is now closer to the strike. Lets assume it is now a 20 delta option. Then Expected return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.20-.05)=$300 However what happens is the entire volatility surface rises and causes the 20 delta option to be 30 delta option. Then The return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.30-.05)=$500 This $200 extra gain is due to convexity and explains why option traders are willing to pay above the theoretical price for these options." }, { "docid": "195152", "title": "", "text": "Put options are contracts to sell. You pay me a fee for the right to put the stock (or other underlying security) in my hands if you want to. That happens on a specific date (the strike date) and a specified price (the strike price). You can decide not to exercise that right, but I must follow through and let you sell it to me if you want to. Put options can be used by the purchaser to cap losses. For example: You purchase a PUT option for GE Oct19 13.00 from me. On October 19th, you can make me let you sell your GE stock to me for $13.00 a share. If the price for GE has fallen to $12.00, that would be a good idea. If its now at $15.00 a share, you will probably keep the GE or sell it at the current market price. Call options are contracts to buy. The same idea only in the other direction: You pay me a fee for the right to call the stock away from me. Calls also have a strike date and strike price. Like a put, you can choose not to exercises it. You can choose to buy the stock from me (on the strike date for the strike price), but I have to let you buy it from me if you want to. For example: You purchase a CALL option for GE Oct19 16.00 option from me. On October 19th, you can buy my GE stock from me for $16.00 a share. If the current price is $17.50, you should make me let you buy if from me for $16.00. If its less than $16.00, you could by it at the current market price for less. Commonly, options are for a block of 100 shares of the underlying security. Note: this is a general description. Options can be very complicated. The fee you pay for the option and the transaction fees associated with the shares affects whether or not exercising is financially beneficial. Options can be VERY RISKY. You can loose all your money as there is no innate value in the option, only how it relates to the underlying security. Before your brokerage will let you trade, there are disclosures you must read and affirm that you understand the risk." }, { "docid": "181924", "title": "", "text": "Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously. It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock. The equality goes both ways. If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs)." }, { "docid": "387801", "title": "", "text": "In the scenario you describe, and really, in any scenario, by the nature of how option contracts work: a higher strike put will necessarily be more expensive than the lower strike put (everything else being equal). the lower strike call will necessarily be more expensive than the higher strike call (everything else being equal). In put options, the buyer has the right to sell stock for the strike price. So the higher the strike price, the more money the buyer of the put option can make by selling the shares of stock at a higher price. In call options, it's the exact opposite: buyers of the call option have the right to buy stock at the strike price. The lower the strike price, the better for the buyer: they have the right to buy stock for a lower amount of money. So it must be worth more." }, { "docid": "61853", "title": "", "text": "\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "273142", "title": "", "text": "\"I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you. Basically you have 3 days to deliver. You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply. If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call. (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline. It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date. It is your \"\"insurance\"\" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want. That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds. Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account. There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online. The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here. Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "271920", "title": "", "text": "\"In the United States, regulation of broker dealer credit is dictated by Regulation T, that for a non-margin account, 100% of a trade must be funded. FINRA has supplemented that regulation with an anti-\"\"free rider\"\" rule, Rule 4210(f)(9), which reads No member shall permit a customer (other than a broker-dealer or a “designated account”) to make a practice, directly or indirectly, of effecting transactions in a cash account where the cost of securities purchased is met by the sale of the same securities. No member shall permit a customer to make a practice of selling securities with them in a cash account which are to be received against payment from another broker-dealer where such securities were purchased and are not yet paid for. A member transferring an account which is subject to a Regulation T 90-day freeze to another member firm shall inform the receiving member of such 90-day freeze. It is only funds from uncleared sold equities that are prohibited from being used to purchase securities. This means that an equity in one's account that is settled can be sold and can be purchased only with settled funds. Once the amount required to purchase is in excess of the amount of settled funds, no more purchases can be made, so an equity sold by an account with settled funds can be repurchased immediately with the settled funds so long as the settled funds can fund the purchase. Margin A closed position is not considered a \"\"long\"\" or \"\"short\"\" since it is an account with one loan of security and one asset of security and one cash loan and one cash liability with the excess or deficit equity equal to any profit or loss, respectively, thus unexposed to the market, only to the creditworthiness of the clearing & settling chain. Only open positions are considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", a \"\"long\"\" being a possession of a security, and a \"\"short\"\" being a liability, because they are exposed to the market. Since unsettled funds are not considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", they are not encumbered by previous trades, thus only the Reg T rules apply to new and current positions. Cash vs Margin A cash account cannot purchase with unsettled funds. A margin account can. This means that a margin account could theoretically do an infinite amount of trades using unsettled funds. A cash account's daily purchases are restricted to the amount of settled funds, so once those are exhausted, no more purchases can be made. The opposite is true for cash accounts as well. Unsettled securities cannot be sold either. In summation, unsettled assets can not be traded in a cash account.\"" }, { "docid": "88947", "title": "", "text": "At the end of each calendar year the mutual fund company will send you a 1099 form. It will tell you and the IRS what your account earned. You will see boxes for: You will end up paying taxes on these, unless the fund is part of a 401K or IRA. These taxes will be due even if you never sold any shares. They are due even if it was a bad year and the value of your account went down. Most if not all states will levy an income tax yon your dividends and capital gains each year. When you sell your shares you may also owe income taxes if you made a profit. The actual taxes due is a more complex calculation due to long term vs short term, and what other gains or losses you have. Partial sales also take into account which shares are sold." }, { "docid": "266900", "title": "", "text": "\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\"" }, { "docid": "445652", "title": "", "text": "The limits on an HSA are low enough that there's no real danger of overfunding it. The limits max out at (as of 2011, for an individual) at just over $3000 per year. Sometime in the next few years, you will have more than $3000 in health care expenses. It might be something like a car accident, acid reflux, a weird mole that the doctor wants to check out, a broken toe, a few nasty cavities that need to be filled, an expensive antibiotic, or something else entirely. Or, it might be something less dramatic, getting eaten away by copays and contact lenses. When that happens, you want the peace of mind that you can pay for your deductible plus any other expenses. Keep in mind that even a $5000 deductible can cost you more than $5000 out-of-pocket; either because of non-insured expenses, or simply an illness that straddles multiple calendar years. Besides, it's not like your HSA money is going anywhere; even if you never touch it, it's just a savings account that you can't touch until you turn 65. And if you do truly have an emergency, you can get at it if you have to. Even if your HSA is filled with several years' worth of deductibles, it's still a way to shield thousands of dollars a year from taxes, with luck moving them into lower-tax years 40 years from now. And it's a way that doesn't involve income limits or mandatory withdrawals." }, { "docid": "64090", "title": "", "text": "If you have $10000 and wish to buy 1000 shares of a $10 stock, you risk borrowing on margin if you go over a bit. For some people, that's a non-issue. Some folk with an account worth say, $250K don't mind going over now and then or even let the margin account run $100K on a regular basis. But your question is about market orders. A limit order above the market price will fast-fill at the market anyway. When I buy a stock, it's longer term usually. A dime on a $30 share price won't affect my buy decision, so market is ok for me." }, { "docid": "524149", "title": "", "text": "\"I've been using YNAB4 for the last few years, and I like it so much that I haven't switched to the web version (new YNAB) yet. However, I have played around with the web version a little, and here is what I have discovered. Despite the different look of the credit card account and the lengthy dissertation on the credit card differences in the Transition Guide, credit cards are handled almost exactly the same in the new YNAB as they were in YNAB4. You enter credit card spending transactions in the same way as YNAB4. When you enter a transaction, money is pulled out of the budget category you select. The only difference is that in YNAB4, this money was considered \"\"gone.\"\" Now, that money moves from your budget category into the new credit card category. When it comes time to pay the credit card bill, you also enter this transaction in the same way as before. It is entered as a transfer of money from your checking account to your credit card account. The only difference here is that with new YNAB, the funds are deducted from your credit card category. This is handled automatically, so you don't have to think about it if you don't want to. If you always pay your credit card bill in full, you never have to budget money manually into the credit card category. The money will already be there from when you entered the credit card spending transactions. The only time you would manually budget money into the credit card spending category is if you have old credit card debt that you are trying to pay off. A quick example, in pictures: I start out with $10,000 in my checking account, and no credit card debt: I've got all $10,000 in my \"\"Fun Money\"\" category: Now, I spend $100 at the Store: You can see that, just like in YNAB4, the credit card account is now in the red $100, and the checking account balance has not changed. In the categories, my Fun Money category is down $100 to $9,900, just like it would be in YNAB4. The only difference is that there is now $100 in the new Credit Card Payments category. When it is time to pay the bill, I enter an account transfer, just like in YNAB4: Note that the Credit Card balance is back to $0, and the Checking Account balance is now down to $9,900. The Credit Card Payment budget category is now magically back to $0: The above example starts with a zero balance on the credit card. However, most people will have a non-zero balance on their credit card when they first start a budget. In YNAB4, when you added a credit card with a (negative) balance, the debt was shown in a budget category called \"\"Pre-YNAB Debt.\"\" You then added money to this budget category until it went to zero, and then you didn't need this budget category anymore. With new YNAB, credit card balances are not shown in budget categories. If you add a credit card account with a balance, the debt is not shown in the budget categories. To pay off this debt, you can fund the Credit Card Payments category. After this existing balance amount is paid off, you won't need to fund the Credit Card Payments category anymore as long as you properly assign each new credit card purchase to a funded budget category.\"" }, { "docid": "24856", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "367928", "title": "", "text": "It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen." }, { "docid": "457729", "title": "", "text": "It's worth pointing out that a bulk of the bond market is institutional investors (read: large corporations and countries). For individuals, it's very easy to just put your cash in a checking account. Checking accounts are insured and non-volatile. But what happens when you're GE or Apple or Panama? You can't just flop a couple billion dollars in to a Chase checking account and call it a day. Although, you still need a safe place to store money that won't be terribly volatile. GE can buy a billion dollars of treasury bonds. Many companies need tremendous amounts of collateral on hand, amounts far in excess of the capacity of a checking account; those funds are stored in treasuries of some sort. Separately, a treasury bond is not a substitute investment for an S&P index fund. For individuals they are two totally different investments with totally different characteristics. The only reason an individual investor should compare the return of the S&P against the readily available yield of treasuries is to ensure the expected return of an equity investment can sufficiently pay for the additional risk." }, { "docid": "188530", "title": "", "text": "You definitely have an argument for getting them to reverse the late fee, especially if it hasn't happened very often. (If you are late every month they may be less likely to forgive.) As for why this happens, it's not actually about business days, but instead it's based on when they know that you paid. In general, there are 2 ways for a company to mark a bill as paid: Late Fees: Some systems automatically assign late fees at the start of the day after the due date if money has not been received. In your case, if your bill was due on the 24th, the late fee was probably assessed at midnight of the 25th, and the payment arrived after that during the day of the 25th. You may have been able to initiate the payment on the company's website at 11:59pm on the 24th and not have received a late fee (or whatever their cutoff time is). Suggestion: as a rule of thumb, for utility bills whose due date and amount can vary slightly from month to month, you're usually better off setting up your payments on the company website to pull from your bank account, instead of setting up your bank account to push the payment to the company. This will ensure that you always get the bill paid on time and for the correct amount. If you still would rather push the payment from your bank account, then consider setting up the payment to arrive about 5 days early, to account for holidays and weekends." }, { "docid": "166227", "title": "", "text": "First off, you should phone your broker and ask them just to be 100% certain. You will be exercised on the short option that was in the money. It is irrelevant that your portfolio does not contain AAPL stock. You will simply be charged the amount it costs to purchase the shares that you owe. I believe your broker would just take this money from your margin/cash account, they would not have let you put the position on if your account could not cover it. I can't see how you having a long dated 2017 call matters. You would still be long this call once assignment of the short call was settled." }, { "docid": "502126", "title": "", "text": "As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk. You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered. There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance. The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss. Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy. A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around. The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong. You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group. Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses. They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts. This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs. The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people. The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases. Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure. Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection. If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious. It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further. Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it. You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers. On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that. On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for. (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.) People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk. The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered." }, { "docid": "418336", "title": "", "text": "Not sure if I follow your question completely. Re: What if some fraud takes place that's too big even for it to fund? SIPC does not fund anything. What it does is takes over the troubled brokerage firm, books / assets and returns the money faster. Refer to SIPC - What SIPC Covers... What it Does Not and more specifically SIPC - Why We Are Not the FDIC. SIPC is free for ordinary investors. To get the same from elsewhere one has to pay the premium. Edit: The event we are saying is a large brokrage firm, takes all of the Margin Money from Customer Accounts and loses it and also sell off all the stocks actually shown as being held in customer account ... that would be to big. While its not clear as to what exactly will happens, my guess is that the limits per customers will go down as initial payments. Subsequent payments will only be done after recover of funds from the bankrupt firm. What normally happens when a brokrage firm goes down is some of the money from customers account is diverted ... stocks are typically safe and not diverted. Hence the way SIPC works is that it will give the money back to customer faster to individuals. In absence of SIPC individual investors would have had to fight for themselves." }, { "docid": "42315", "title": "", "text": "Sometimes what happens is that a creditor will hand over accounts to a collection agency for action, and after a period of time, it may be reassigned to yet another collection agency if the first one was not successful. Theoretically, this should not be cause to reset the date of collections on your bureau file, but that very well could have happened here. Another instance when this happens is when someone contacts a creditor about a collection item on their report, either to pay or dispute it. Either way, this restarts the 7-year clock on that collection item, so if a debt is old enough, sometimes the best course of action is to let it go. If a debt has been in collections for 4 years, let's say, and you decide to pay it off now, your score isn't going to improve because you paid the collection enough to offset the effect of having it refreshed on your bureau file. Besides, creditors know how old the debt is, so waiting 4 years to pay it isn't going to win you any favors in their eyes anyway. To your question though, it seems to me the most likely thing is that somehow the debt was refreshed through some action by the creditor or one of the agencies assigned to collect on it. I hope this helps. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "111871", "title": "", "text": "The reason I don't know of any banks who would offer this to you (even if you held the investment account with their bank) is that there is no upside to the bank. It is a good idea for you, but what would they have to gain from this arrangement? The reason banks require a down payment is underwriting quality. If you can afford a significant down payment, they know that there is a significantly lower chance that you will default. However, if you were to provide an investment account as collateral, you would receive all the upside, and any downside would reduce their collateral as a percent of the amount loaned. This sort of idea could potentially work along the lines of a margin call (ie you have to provide additional capital if your asset value drops), but this would have the effective of leveraging the bank's risk, when their objective is to lower their risk through requiring a down payment. I don't see a reason why the bank would take on the risk that you would need to provide additional capital down the road with no upside for them. Additionally, many banks have backed away from the kinds of zero-down-payment and negative-amortization-ARM loans that got them (or the people they sold them to) in trouble over the last few years in an effort to reduce how much risk they take on. I think that in theory, you'd have to offer a lot more benefit to the bank, and that in practice it's probably a non-starter right now." }, { "docid": "370870", "title": "", "text": "When I did my CSC waaaaay back in the day (when there was 1 4 hour exam and 2 assignments, fuck I'm old) this is what I did. I took the week after New Years off, and studied exclusively for the CSC. I did nothing else but study (but I had done a lot of prep before) then I wrote the exam after a week of non-stop study. To be honest, the exam isn't difficult - at least the finance parts. The tricky parts are the pure memorization ones, which are almost all compliance/ethics questions (e.g. how long do you have to notify the OSC of a change in address, etc). Do not ignore these sections as they do test on ethics/compliance a lot." }, { "docid": "55325", "title": "", "text": "\"First, to clear up your misconceptions: The balance is not merely made up of deductible and non-deductible contributions. There are also earnings implied in the balance .. i.e. the whole reason you invest in the first place is to realize some return on investment. That return, a.k.a. the earnings, are included in the balance of the account. The balance is the sum total of everything in the account, the \"\"bottom line\"\". Generally speaking, basis for an account is all of the money that has been contributed (deposited) to the account. In the context of an IRA as described in the article, however, they are using basis to refer to only the non-deductible contributions. Of note, however, is that basis specifically excludes earnings. If you have deposited, say, $5000 one year and $5000 the next, then your basis is $10,000, even if the balance has grown to, say, $12,000 (which includes the earnings). As may be evident by now, earnings are not equivalent to deductible contributions. Earnings may arise from such contributions but they are not the same. Rather, earnings are the net positive investment results from all contributions. Again, if you had contributed $5000 one year and $5000 the next and the balance has grown to $12,000, then the earnings portion is $2000. So to interpret what happened in the specific example provided: Over the years, the account holder contributed (deposited) a total of $15,000 into his account. These must have been non-deductible contributions in the case of the IRA in order to arrive at basis of $15,000. Over time (and coincident with the deposits), that $15,000 grew to $24,000 .. i.e. earned $9,000 in earnings. Then, the nearly 50% drop caused the balance to decay to $13,000. This means all $9,000 of his earnings were wiped out, plus $2000 of the original basis. The remaining $13,000 is all basis .. that is, considered to be original money deposited to the account, no earnings. In effect, the account has lost $2000 of basis, because $15,000 was deposited and only $13,000 remains. Simplistic way of looking at it: A $15,000 investment resulted in a final $13,000 sale, i.e. a net loss of $2000. It doesn't matter that it hit $24,000 in the meanwhile .. it could have hit $250,000 in value and then dropped to $13,000 and the net result would be the same: a loss of $2000 in basis. Traditional IRA earnings are always tax-deferred .. i.e. whether earnings arise from deductible or else non-deductible contributions, when one takes a distribution (withdraws) from an IRA and the distribution includes earnings, the earnings portion is always taxable income. Doesn't matter if the earnings arose from one kind of contribution or the other. I don't think in this example there were any deductible contributions whatsoever. Does that make sense / help?\"" }, { "docid": "543811", "title": "", "text": "\"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\"" }, { "docid": "72024", "title": "", "text": "\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "472516", "title": "", "text": "I can't speak for all brokerages but the one I use requires cash accounts to have cash available to purchase the stock in this situation. With the cash available you would be able to purchase the stock if the option was exercised. Hope this helps" } ]

[ { "docid": "19433", "title": "", "text": "I believe your question is based on a false premise. First, no broker, that I know of, provides an RRSP account that is a margin account. RRSP accounts follow cash settlement rules. If you don't have the cash available, you can't buy a stock. You can't borrow money from your broker within your RRSP. If you want to borrow money to invest in your RRSP, you must borrow outside from another source, and make a contribution to your RRSP. And, if you do this, the loan interest is not considered tax deductible. In order for investment loan interest to be tax deductible, you'd need to invest outside of a registered type of account, e.g. using a regular non-tax-sheltered account. Even then, what you can deduct may be limited. Refer to CRA - Line 221 - Carrying charges and interest expenses: You can claim the following carrying charges and interest [...] [...] You cannot deduct on line 221 any of the following amounts:" }, { "docid": "324564", "title": "", "text": "I have held an in the money long position on an option into expiration, on etrade, and nothing happened. (Scalping expiring options - high risk) The option expired a penny or two ITM, and was not worth exercising, nor did I have the purchasing power to exercise it. (AAPL) From etrade's website: Here are a few things to keep in mind about exercises and assignments: Equity options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. For example, a September $25 call will be automatically exercised if the underlying security's closing price is $25.01 or higher at expiration. If the closing price is below $25.01, you would need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1 with specific instructions for exercising the option. You would also need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker if the closing price is higher than $25.01 at expiration and you do not wish to exercise the call option. Index options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. Options that are out of the money will expire worthless. You may request to exercise American style options anytime prior to expiration. A request not to exercise options may be made only on the last trading day prior to expiration. If you'd like to exercise options or submit do-not-exercise instructions, call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1. You won't be charged our normal fee for broker-assisted trades, but the regular options commission will apply. Requests are processed on a best-efforts basis. When equity options are exercised or assigned, you'll receive a Smart Alert message letting you know. You can also check View Orders to see which stock you bought or sold, the number of shares, and the strike price. Notes: If you do not have sufficient purchasing power in your account to accept the assignment or exercise, your expiring options positions may be closed, without notification, on the last trading day for the specific options series. Additionally, if your expiring position is not closed and you do not have sufficient purchasing power, E*TRADE Securities may submit do-not-exercise instructions without notification. Find out more about options expiration dates." }, { "docid": "549254", "title": "", "text": "\"Exposure is the amount of money that you are at risk of losing on a given position (i.e. on a UST 10 year bond), portfolio of positions, strategy (selling covered calls for example), or counterparty, usually represented as a percentage of your total assets. Interbank exposure is the exposure of banks to other banks either through owning debt or stock, or by having open positions with the other banks as counterparties. Leveraging occurs when the value of your position is more than the value of what you are trading in. One example of this is borrowing money (i.e. creating debt for yourself) to buy bonds. The amount of your own funds that you are using to pay for the position is \"\"leveraged\"\" by the debt so that you are risking more than 100% of your capital if, for example, the bond became worthless). Another example would be buying futures \"\"on margin\"\" where you only put up the margin value of the trade and not the full cost. The problem with these leveraged positions is what happens if a credit event (default etc.) happens. Since a large amount of the leverage is being \"\"passed on\"\" as banks are issuing debt to buy other banks' debt who are issuing debt to buy debt there is a risk that a single failure could cause an unravelling of these leveraged positions and, since the prices of the bonds will be falling resulting in these leveraged positions losing money, it will cause a cascade of losses and defaults. If a leveraged position becomes worth less than the amount of real (rather than borrowed or margined) money that was put up to take the position then it is almost inevitable that the firm in that position will default on the requirements for the leverage. When that firm defaults it sparks all of the firms who own that debt to go through the same problems that it did, hence the contagion.\"" }, { "docid": "118360", "title": "", "text": "First, it depends on your broker. Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing. You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless. As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft. They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications. When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk. If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer. In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads." }, { "docid": "69419", "title": "", "text": "I used Oanda.com for Forex trading a couple years ago. I am in the US but I think it's available in the UK as well. At the time, they had no commissions and their spreads were comparable or better than other brokers. The spreads would just quite considerably when a big event like a Fed meeting or the unemployment figures come out, but I suspect that that is the same everywhere (or they have constant spreads and reject trades). They did not push the high leverages like other brokers were at the time. I considered this to be very reputable, because though the profits to be gotten through 100:1 leverage are great advertising, the reality is that one unexpected spike and a newbie would lose a bunch of money in a margin call." }, { "docid": "502126", "title": "", "text": "As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk. You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered. There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance. The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss. Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy. A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around. The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong. You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group. Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses. They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts. This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs. The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people. The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases. Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure. Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection. If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious. It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further. Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it. You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers. On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that. On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for. (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.) People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk. The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered." }, { "docid": "554015", "title": "", "text": "What account you put it in depends on why you have those different accounts. First, if you have them due to regulatory requirements, then you of course must follow said regulations. I doubt that's the case here. Otherwise, you might be splitting based on how they trade (ETFs trade as stocks) or you could be splitting based on how you build a portfolio out of them. When you build a non-speculative stock portfolio, you typically want to limit your holdings in a single stock to a fairly small portion of your portfolio (say, 3%) to limit your exposure to bad stuff happening to a single company. That doesn't apply nearly a much to mutual funds, especially index funds. ETFs are much more like mutual funds here. You can also, of course, create an ETF account and put them there. You also say you have a market index account, what is that used for?" }, { "docid": "372787", "title": "", "text": "The ABA number you speak of is more accurately called the Routing Transit Number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number A routing transit number (RTN) is a nine digit bank code, used in the United States, which appears on the bottom of negotiable instruments such as checks identifying the financial institution on which it was drawn. This code was designed to facilitate the sorting, bundling, and shipment of paper checks back to the drawer's (check writer's) account. The RTN is also used by Federal Reserve Banks to process Fedwire funds transfers, and by the Automated Clearing House to process direct deposits, bill payments, and other such automated transfers. The RTN number is derived from the bank's transit number originated by the American Bankers Association, which designed it in 1910.[1] I am going to assume that the euphemistic ABA Number has been shortened by whoever told you about it and called it the ABN. Perhaps American Bank Number. Either way, the technical term is RTN. Perhaps a comment or editor can straighten me out about the ABN. There is an international number known as the SWIFT number that serves the same purpose worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9362 ISO 9362 (also known as SWIFT-BIC, BIC code, SWIFT ID or SWIFT code) defines a standard format of Business Identifier Codes approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It is a unique identification code for both financial and non-financial institutions.[1] The acronym SWIFT stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. When assigned to a non-financial institution, the code may also be known as a Business Entity Identifier or BEI. These codes are used when transferring money between banks, particularly for international wire transfers, and also for the exchange of other messages between banks. The codes can sometimes be found on account statements." }, { "docid": "367928", "title": "", "text": "It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen." }, { "docid": "331248", "title": "", "text": "Forms for the Colorado LLCs are online. You can find the link to the dissolution form here, and instructions here. IRS instructions are here. That's what they want: To close your business account, send us a letter that includes the complete legal name of the entity, the EIN, the business address and the reason you wish to close your account. If you have a copy of the EIN Assignment Notice that was issued when your EIN was assigned, include that when you write to us at: Internal Revenue Service Cincinnati, Ohio 45999 Everything is pretty straight forward. Note that you might be required to file a initial/final tax return if you had any transactions." }, { "docid": "542098", "title": "", "text": "\"In addition to the information in the other answer, I would suggest looking at an economic calendar. These provide the dates and values of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, consumer confidence, etc. Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal all provide such calendars. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. You could also look at a global economic calendar; both xe.com and livecharts.co.uk provide these. If you're only interested in the US, the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and WSJ calendars may provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but foreign announcements also affect US markets, so it's important to get as much perspective as possible. I like the global economic calendars I linked to above because they rate announcements on \"\"priority\"\", which is a quick way to learn which announcements have the greatest effect. Economic calendars are especially important in the context of an interview because you may be asked a follow-up question. For example, the US markets jumped in early trading today (5/28/2013) because the consumer confidence numbers exceeded forecasts (from the WSJ calendar, 76.2 vs 2.3). As SRKX stated, it's important to know more than the numbers; being able to analyze the numbers in the context of the wider market and being aware of the fundamentals driving them is what's most important. An economic calendar is a good way to see this information quickly and succinctly. (I'm paraphrasing part of my answer to another question, so you may or may not find some of that information helpful as well; I'm certainly not suggesting you look at the website of every central bank in the morning. That's what an economic calendar is for!)\"" }, { "docid": "433069", "title": "", "text": "I personally spoke with a Questrade agent about my question. To make a long story short: in a margin account, you are automatically issued a loan when buying U.S. stock with a Canadian money. Whereas, in a registered account (e.g. RRSP), the amount is converted on your behalf to cover the debit balance. Me: What happens if I open an account and I place an order for U.S. stocks with Canadian money? Is the amount converted at the time of transfer? How does that work? Agent: In a margin account, you are automatically issued a loan for a currency you do not have, however, if you have enough buying power, it will go through. The interest on the overnight balance is calculated daily and is charged on a monthly basis. We do not convert funds automatically in a margin account because you can have a debit cash balance. Agent: In a registered account, the Canada Revenue Agency does not allow a debit balance and therefore, we must convert your funds on your behalf to cover the debit balance if possible. We convert automatically overnight for a registered account. Agent: For example, if you buy U.S. equity you will need USD to buy it, and if you only have CAD, we will loan you USD to cover for that transaction. For example, if you had only $100 CAD and then wanted to buy U.S. stock worth $100 USD, then we will loan you $100 USD to purchase the stock. In a margin account we will not convert the funds automatically. Therefore, you will remain to have a $100 CAD credit and a $100 USD debit balance (or a loan) in your account. Me: I see, it means the longer I keep the stock, the higher interest will be? Agent: Well, yes, however, in a registered account there will be not be any interest since we convert your funds, but in a margin account, there will be interest until the debit balance is covered, or you can manually convert your funds by contacting us." }, { "docid": "269043", "title": "", "text": "If you are restricting yourself to Scotiabank (Both retail banking and iTrade), your choices are pretty limited. If you are exchanging more than CAD$25,000 to EUR without margin, you can call Scotiabank and ask for a quote with much lower spread than the published snapshots. The closest ETF that you are talking about is RWE.B on TSX, which is First Asset MSCI Europe Low Risk Weighted ETF (Unhedged). You will be exposed to huge equity market risk and you should do it only if you intend to hold it for 3-5 years. Another way of exchanging cash is without opening an account is through a currency exchange broker (search “toronto currency exchange” for relevant companies). First you send an email asking for a quote for the amount you wanted, then you send the CAD to them via cheque, and they would convert to EUR and deposit it to your EUR account at Scotiabank (retail banking). This method costs around 0.7% compared to 2.5% charged by Scotiabank. An example of these brokers is Interchange Currency Exchange in Toronto. If you are hedging more than 125000 EUR, the proper method is to open an account that supports trading Currency Futures on Globex (US CME group). You can long Euro/Canadian Dollar Futures on margin. The last method is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, put CAD in it, then borrow more CAD to buy EUR. This method costs a few dollars upon trading and the spread is negligible. You need to pay 2.25% per year margin interest through." }, { "docid": "279185", "title": "", "text": "\"Simplest way to answer this is that on margin, one is using borrowed assets and thus there are strings that come with doing that. Thus, if the amount of equity left gets too low, the broker has a legal obligation to close the position which can be selling purchased shares or buying back borrowed shares depending on if this is a long or short position respectively. Investopedia has an example that they walk through as the call is where you are asked to either put in more money to the account or the position may be closed because the broker wants their money back. What is Maintenance Margin? A maintenance margin is the required amount of securities an investor must hold in his account if he either purchases shares on margin, or if he sells shares short. If an investor's margin balance falls below the set maintenance margin, the investor would then need to contribute additional funds to the account or liquidate stocks in the account to bring the account back to the initial margin requirement. This request is known as a margin call. As discussed previously, the Federal Reserve Board sets the initial margin requirement (currently at 50%). The Federal Reserve Board also sets the maintenance margin. The maintenance margin, the amount of equity an investor needs to hold in his account if he buys stock on margin or sells shares short, is 25%. Keep in mind, however, that this 25% level is the minimum level set, brokerage firms can increase, but not decrease this level as they desire. Example: Determining when a margin call would occur. Assume that an investor had purchased 500 shares of Newco's stock. The shares were trading at $50 when the transaction was executed. The initial margin requirement on the account was 70% and the maintenance margin is 30%. Assume no transaction costs. Determine the price at which the investor will receive a margin call. Answer: Calculate the price as follows: $50 (1- 0.70) = $21.43 1 - 0.30 A margin call would be received when the price of Newco's stock fell below $21.43 per share. At that time, the investor would either need to deposit additional funds or liquidate shares to satisfy the initial margin requirement. Most people don't want \"\"Margin Calls\"\" but stocks may move in unexpected ways and this is where there are mechanisms to limit losses, especially for the brokerage firm that wants to make as much money as possible. Cancel what trade? No, the broker will close the position if the requirement isn't kept. Basically think of this as a way for the broker to get their money back if necessary while following federal rules. This would be selling in a long position or buying in a short sale situation. The Margin Investor walks through an example where an e-mail would be sent and if the requirement isn't met then the position gets exited as per the law.\"" }, { "docid": "357583", "title": "", "text": "Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable." }, { "docid": "584175", "title": "", "text": "\"As your financial situation becomes more complex, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track of everything with a simple spreadsheet. It is much easier to work with software that is specifically designed for personal finances. A good program will allow you to keep track of as many accounts as you want. A great program will completely separate the different account balances (location of the money) from the budget category balances (purpose of the money). Let me explain: When you set up the software, you will enter in all of your different bank accounts with their balances. Perhaps you have three savings accounts and two checking accounts. It doesn't matter. When you are done entering those, the software will total them up, and the next job you have is assigning this money into different budget categories: your spending plan. For example, you might put some of it into a grocery category, some into an entertainment category, some will be assigned to pay your next car insurance bill, and some will be an emergency fund. (These categories are completely customizable, and your budget can be as broad or as detailed as you wish.) When you deposit your paycheck, you assign that new income into budget categories as well. It doesn't matter at this point which accounts your money are located in; the only thing that matters is that you own this money and you have access to it. Now, you might want to use a certain account for a certain budget category, but you are not required to do so. (For example, your grocery category money will probably be in your checking account, since you will be spending from it regularly. Your emergency fund will hopefully be in an account that earns a little higher interest.) Once you take this approach, you might find you don't need as many bank accounts as you thought you did, because the software does the job of separating your money into different \"\"accounts\"\" for different purposes. I've written before about the different categories of personal finance software. YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar are three examples of software that will take this approach of separating the concepts of the bank account and the budget category.\"" }, { "docid": "311285", "title": "", "text": "If your business is operating on an accrual basis, the income would be counted as occurring in 2016. If your business is operating on a cash basis, the income would be counted as occurring in 2017. If you don't know what that means, you are probably using a cash basis for your business, which means income and expenses take place when you actually receive or incur them. According to cash-based principles, if you receive the check in 2017, that is when you report the income. For more information, see Accounting Methods in Publication 538. In summary, you can choose both as an individual and as a business which accounting method you want to use, and it is not trivial to change it. Cash basis on a calendar year is more or less the default, and is recommended unless you have a specific reason for doing something else." }, { "docid": "499060", "title": "", "text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\"" }, { "docid": "111871", "title": "", "text": "The reason I don't know of any banks who would offer this to you (even if you held the investment account with their bank) is that there is no upside to the bank. It is a good idea for you, but what would they have to gain from this arrangement? The reason banks require a down payment is underwriting quality. If you can afford a significant down payment, they know that there is a significantly lower chance that you will default. However, if you were to provide an investment account as collateral, you would receive all the upside, and any downside would reduce their collateral as a percent of the amount loaned. This sort of idea could potentially work along the lines of a margin call (ie you have to provide additional capital if your asset value drops), but this would have the effective of leveraging the bank's risk, when their objective is to lower their risk through requiring a down payment. I don't see a reason why the bank would take on the risk that you would need to provide additional capital down the road with no upside for them. Additionally, many banks have backed away from the kinds of zero-down-payment and negative-amortization-ARM loans that got them (or the people they sold them to) in trouble over the last few years in an effort to reduce how much risk they take on. I think that in theory, you'd have to offer a lot more benefit to the bank, and that in practice it's probably a non-starter right now." } ]

[ { "docid": "178684", "title": "", "text": "Usually the amount of the ESPP stocks is very small compared to the overall volume of the trading, so it shouldn't matter. But check if for your company it not so (look at the stock history for the previous ESPP dates, and volumes)." } ]

[ { "docid": "362874", "title": "", "text": "the short answer is: No. you do not HAVE to pay $125,000.00 at the end of your first year. that is only the amount IF you decide to exercise. *fine print: But if you leave or get let go (which happens quite frequently at top tier Silicon Valley firms), you lose anything that you don't exercise. you're basically chained by a pair of golden handcuffs. in other words, you're stuck with the company until a liquidation event such as IPO or secondary market selling (you can expect to spend a few years before getting anything out of your stocks) Now, it's hard to say whether or not to exercise at that time, especially given we don't know the details of the company. you only should exercise if you foresee your quitting, anticipate getting fired, AND you strongly feel that stock price will keep going up. if you're in SF bay, i believe you have 10 years until your options expire (at which point they are gone forever, but that's 10 years and usually companies IPO well within 7 years). i would recommend you get a very good tax advisor (someone that understands AMT and stock options tax loopholes/rules like the back of their hand). I'm going to take a long shot and assume that you got an amazing offer and that you got a massive amount of ISOs from them. so i'll give this as an advice - first, congrats on owning a lot on paper today if you're still there. you chose to be an early employee at a good tech company. However, you should be more worried about AMT (alternative min tax). you will get enslaved by the IRS if you exercise your shares and can't pay the AMT. suppose, in your fictional scenario, your stock options increase 2x, on paper. you now own $1 Mil in options. but you would be paying $280000 in taxes if you chose to exercise them right now. Now, unless you can sell that IMMEDIATELY on the secondary market, i would highly advise you not to exercise right now. only exercise your ISOs when you can turn around and sell them (either waiting for IPO, or if company offers secondary market approved trading)." }, { "docid": "229573", "title": "", "text": "What does it mean when some one says that today there was a lot of net selling or buying in a stock. What does it mean because for every selling there is also a buying going on then how can you determine a selling or buying ? Generally if the price of stock has gone down compared to previous day, the trend is of selling. As the price can be volatile, there maybe few trades that are above close price of previous day, or below close price of previous day. How can you calculate average trade price for a stock It is simple {sum of all [price*quantity]}/quantity. Related question Equity market inflow meaning" }, { "docid": "179398", "title": "", "text": "You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year." }, { "docid": "556696", "title": "", "text": "Typically, the discount is taxable at sale time But what about taxes? When the company buys the shares for you, you do not owe any taxes. You are exercising your rights under the ESPP. You have bought some stock. So far so good. When you sell the stock, the discount that you received when you bought the stock is generally considered additional compensation to you, so you have to pay taxes on it as regular income. Source: Turbotax. Second source. Your pretax rate of return would be: 17% (100/85) In your scenario where the stock price is fixed at $100. Your tax rate would be your marginal rate. If the stock stayed at 100, you would still be taxed as income on $15/share (the discount) and would receive no benefit for holding the stock one year. Assuming you are in the 25% tax bracket, your after tax rate of return would be 13% ((15*.75)+85)/85)" }, { "docid": "95415", "title": "", "text": "\"You may look into covered calls. In short, selling the option instead of buying it ... playing the house. One can do this on the \"\"buying side\"\" too, e.g. let's say you like company XYZ. If you sell the put, and it goes up, you make money. If XYZ goes down by expiration, you still made the money on the put, and now own the stock - the one you like, at a lower price. Now, you can immediately sell calls on XYZ. If it doesn't go up, you make money. If it does goes up, you get called out, and you make even more money (probably selling the call a little above current price, or where it was \"\"put\"\" to you at). The greatest risk is very large declines, and so one needs to do some research on the company to see if they are decent -- e.g. have good earnings, not over-valued P/E, etc. For larger declines, one has to sell the call further out. Note there are now stocks that have weekly options as well as monthly options. You just have to calculate the rate of return you will get, realizing that underneath the first put, you need enough money available should the stock be \"\"put\"\" to you. An additional, associated strategy, is starting by selling the put at a higher than current market limit price. Then, over a couple days, generally lowering the limit, if it isn't reached in the stock's fluctuation. I.e. if the stock drops in the next few days, you might sell the put on a dip. Same deal if the stock finally is \"\"put\"\" to you. Then you can start by selling the call at a higher limit price, gradually bringing it down if you aren't successful -- i.e. the stock doesn't reach it on an upswing. My friend is highly successful with this strategy. Good luck\"" }, { "docid": "566205", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the \"\"dividend day\"\" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 \"\"refund\"\". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the \"\"normal\"\" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the \"\"normal\"\" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life.\"" }, { "docid": "444668", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \"\"day-trading\"\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\"" }, { "docid": "396657", "title": "", "text": "The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing." }, { "docid": "407602", "title": "", "text": "Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks." }, { "docid": "309538", "title": "", "text": "You can use Norbet's Gambit to convert between USD and CAD either direction. I have never personally done this, but I am planning to convert some CAD to USD soon, so I can invest in USD index funds without paying the typical 2% conversion fee. You must be okay with waiting a few days for the trades to settle, and okay with the fact that the exchange rate will almost certainly change before you sell the shares in the opposite currency. The spread on DLR.TO is about 0.01% - 0.02%, and you also have brokerage commissions and fees. If you use a discount broker the commissions and fees can be quite low. EG. To transfer $5000 USD to CAD using Questrade, you would deposit the USD into a Questrade account and then purchase ~500 units of DLR.U.TO , since it is an ETF there is no commission on the purchase. Then you request that they journal the shares over to DLR.TO and you sell them in CAD (will have about a $5 fee in CAD, and lose about $1 on the spread) and withdraw. The whole thing will have cost you $6 CAD, in lieu of ~$100 you would pay if you did a straightforward conversion with a 2% exchange fee. The difference in fees scales up as the amount you transfer increases. Someone has posted the chat log from when they requested their shares be journaled from DLR.TO to DLR.U.TO here. It looks like it was quite straightforward. Of course there is a time-cost, and the nuisance of signing up for an maintaining an account with a broker if you don't have one already. You can do it on non discount-brokers, but it will only be worth it to do it with a larger amount of money, since the commissions are larger. Note: If you have enough room to hold the CAD amount in your TFSA and will still have that much room at the end of the calendar year, I recommend doing the exchange in a TFSA account. The taxes are minimal unless the exchange rate changes drastically while your trades are settling (from capital gains or losses while waiting a few days for the trades to settle), but they are annoying to calculate, if you do it often. Warning if you do it in a TFSA be sure not to over contribute. Every time you deposit counts as a contribution and your withdrawals don't count against the limit until the next calendar year." }, { "docid": "246221", "title": "", "text": "ESPP tax treatment is complicated. If you received a discount on the purchase of your stock, that discount is taxable as ordinary income when you sell the stock. Any profit about the market value when the stock was purchased is taxed based upon the holding period of the stock. If you have held the stock less than a year, the profit is taxed at your marginal tax rate (ie taxed as ordinary income). If the stock is held for more than a year, it is taxed at a special capital gains tax rate, which ranges from 0-20% depending on your marginal tax rate (most people pay 15%)." }, { "docid": "355871", "title": "", "text": "\"I am strongly skeptical of this. In fact, after reading your question, I did the following: I wrote a little program in python that \"\"simulates\"\" a stock by flipping a coin. Each time the coin comes up heads, the stock's value grows by 1. Each time the coin comes up tails, the stock's value drops by 1. I then group, say, 50 of these steps into a \"\"day\"\", and for each day I look at opening, closing, maximum and minimum. This is then graphed in a candlestick chart. Funny enough, those things look exactly like the charts analysts look at. Here are a few examples: If you want to be a troll, show these to a technical analyst and ask them which of these stocks you should sell short and which of them you should buy. You can try this at home, I posted the code here and it only needs Python with a few extra packages (Numpy and Pylab, should both be in the SciPy package). In reply to a comment from JoeTaxpayer, let me add some more theory to this. My code actually performs a one-dimensional random walk. Now Joe in the comments says that an infinite number of flips should approach the zero line, but that is not exactly correct. In fact, there is a high chance to end up far from the zero line, because the expected distance from the start for a random walk with N steps is sqrt(N). What does indeed approach the zero line is if you took a bunch of these random walks and then performed the average over those. There is, however, one important aspect in which this random walk differs from the stock market: The random walk can go down as far as it likes, whereas a stock has a bottom below which it cannot fall. Reaching this bottom means the company is bankrupt and gets removed from the market. This means that the total stock market, which we might interpret as a sum of random walks, does indeed have a bias towards upwards movement, since I'm only averaging over those random walks that don't go below a certain threshold. But you can really only benefit from this effect by being broadly diversified.\"" }, { "docid": "300698", "title": "", "text": "One answer in four days tells you this is a niche, else there should be many replies by now. The bible is McMillan on Options Note - I link to the 1996 edition which starts at 39 cents, the latest revision will set you back $30 used. The word bible says it all, it offers a great course in options, everything you need to know. You don't get a special account for option trading. You just apply to your regular broker, so depending what you wish to do, the amount starts at You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that. Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000. Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience. You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that. Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000. Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience." }, { "docid": "68907", "title": "", "text": "I'd add, this is actually the way any stock opens every day, i.e. the closing price of the prior day is what it is, but the opening price will reflect whatever news there was prior to the day's open. If you watch the business news, you'll often see that some stock has an order imbalance and has not opened yet, at the normal time. So, as Geo stated, those who were sold shares at the IPO price paid $38, but then the stock could open at whatever price was the point where bid and ask balanced. I snapped a screen capture of this chart on the first day of trading, the daily charts aren't archived where I can find them. This is from Yahoo Finance. You can see the $42 open from those who simply wanted in but couldn't wait, the willingness of sellers to grab their profit right back to what they paid, and then another wave of buying, but then a sell-off. It closed virtually unchanged from the IPO price." }, { "docid": "300139", "title": "", "text": "\"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \"\"sell to open\"\" transactions. \"\"Sell to open\"\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \"\"pattern day-trading\"\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \"\"free-riding\"\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\"" }, { "docid": "337049", "title": "", "text": "Say I am an employee of Facebook and I will be able to sell stares at enough of a profit to pay of my mortgage and have enough money left to cover my living costs for many years. I also believe that there is a 95% chance that the stock price will go up in the next few years. Do I take a 5% risk, when I can transform my life without taking any risk? (The USA tax system as explained by JoeTaxpayer increases the risk.) So you have a person being very logical and selling stocks that they believe will go up in value by more than any other investment they could have. It is called risk control. (Lot of people will know the above; therefore some people will delay buying stock until Lock Up expiration day hoping the price will be lower on that day. So the price may not go down.)" }, { "docid": "237718", "title": "", "text": "There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants." }, { "docid": "576694", "title": "", "text": "Remember, carrying debt on a credit card and waiting to pay it is increased risk in the event something happens and you can't pay it off. I have 1 CC and I have it set to auto-pay on the day it's due (paid in full each month as I don't carry debt anymore - learned that lesson a hard way :) ). So the day it's due it auto-drafts out of my checking. No worries of late payments, missed payments, etc. If you feel that having any balance is bad then by all means pay it off the minute you get your statement. It should come at the same time each month (or close to the same time) and you should be able to setup an auto-payment to pay it off in full as soon as the new statement goes live. To be honest, those extra few days of supposed interest saved by keeping the money in your checking account is so minimal that's it's probably not worth it. Most checking is horrible in interest (all my 'high interest' checking accounts are now less than 1% APR. boo.) and if you're late 1 day then bam! All that earned interest is gone in 1 late fee..." }, { "docid": "102237", "title": "", "text": "An instant 15% profit sounds good to me, so you can't go wrong selling as soon as you are able. Here are a couple other considerations: Tax implications: When you sell the stock, you have to pay taxes on the profit (including that 15% discount). The tax rate you pay is based on how long you wait to sell it. If you wait a certain amount of time (usually 2 years, but it will depend on your specific tax codes) before you sell, you could be subject to lower tax rates on that profit. See here for a more detailed description. This might only apply if you're in the US. Since you work for the company, you may be privy to a bit more information about how the company is run and how likely it is to grow. As such, if you feel like the company is headed in the right direction, you may want to hold on the the stock for a while. I am generally wary of being significantly invested in the company you work for. If the company goes south, then the stock price will obviously drop, but you'll also be at risk to be laid off. As such you're exposed much more risk than investing in other companies. This is a good argument to sell the stock and take the 15% profit.* * - I realize your question wasn't really about whether to sell the stock, but more for when, but I felt this was relevant nonetheless." } ]

[ { "docid": "102237", "title": "", "text": "An instant 15% profit sounds good to me, so you can't go wrong selling as soon as you are able. Here are a couple other considerations: Tax implications: When you sell the stock, you have to pay taxes on the profit (including that 15% discount). The tax rate you pay is based on how long you wait to sell it. If you wait a certain amount of time (usually 2 years, but it will depend on your specific tax codes) before you sell, you could be subject to lower tax rates on that profit. See here for a more detailed description. This might only apply if you're in the US. Since you work for the company, you may be privy to a bit more information about how the company is run and how likely it is to grow. As such, if you feel like the company is headed in the right direction, you may want to hold on the the stock for a while. I am generally wary of being significantly invested in the company you work for. If the company goes south, then the stock price will obviously drop, but you'll also be at risk to be laid off. As such you're exposed much more risk than investing in other companies. This is a good argument to sell the stock and take the 15% profit.* * - I realize your question wasn't really about whether to sell the stock, but more for when, but I felt this was relevant nonetheless." } ]

[ { "docid": "577585", "title": "", "text": "Pivots Points are significant levels technical analysts can use to determine directional movement, support and resistance. Pivot Points use the prior period's high, low and close to formulate future support and resistance. In this regard, Pivot Points are predictive or leading indicators. There are at least five different versions of Pivot Points. I will focus on Standard Pivot Points here as they are the simplest. If you are looking to trade off daily charts you would work out your Pivot Points from the prior month's data. For example, Pivot Points for first trading day of February would be based on the high, low and close for January. They remain the same for the entire month of February. New Pivot Points would then be calculated on the first trading day of March using the high, low and close for February. To work out the Standard Pivot Points you use the High, Low and Close from the previous period (i.e. for daily charts it would be from the previous month) in the following formulas: You will now have 5 horizontal lines: P, R1, R2, S1 and S2 which will set the general tone for price action over the next month. A move above the Pivot Point P suggests strength with a target to the first resistance R1. A break above first resistance shows even more strength with a target to the second resistance level R2. The converse is true on the downside. A move below the Pivot Point P suggests weakness with a target to the first support level S1. A break below the first support level shows even more weakness with a target to the second support level S2. The second resistance and support levels (R2 & S2) can also be used to identify potentially overbought and oversold situations. A move above the second resistance level R2 would show strength, but it would also indicate an overbought situation that could give way to a pullback. Similarly, a move below the second support level S2 would show weakness, but would also suggest a short-term oversold condition that could give way to a bounce. This could be used together with a momentum indicator such as RSI or Stochastic to confirm overbought or oversold conditions. Pivot Points offer a methodology to determine price direction and then set support and resistance levels, however, it is important to confirm Pivot Point signals with other technical analysis indicators, such as candle stick reversal patterns, stochastic and general Support and Resistance Levels in the price action. These pivot points can be handy but I actually haven’t used them for trade setups and entries myself. I prefer to use candle sticks together with stochastic to determine potential turning points and then take out trades based on these. You can then use the Pivot Points Resistance and Support levels to help you estimate profit targets or areas to start becoming cautious and start tightening your stops. Say, for example, you have gone long from a signal you got a few days ago, you are now in profit and the price is now approaching R2 whilst the Stochastic is approaching overbought, you might want to start tightening your stop loss as you might expect some weakness in the price in the near future. If prices continue up you keep increasing your profits, if prices do reverse then you keep the majority of your existing profits. This would become part of your trade management. If you are after finding potential market turning points and take out trades based on these, then I would suggest using candlestick charting reversal patterns for your trade setups. The patterns I like to use most in my trading can be described as either the Hammer or One White Soldier for Bullish reversals and Shooting Star or One Black Crow for Bearish reversals. Below are diagrams of where to place your entries and exits on both Bullish and Bearish reversal patterns. Bullish Reversal Pattern So after some period of weakness in the price you would look for a bullish day where the price closes above the previous day’s high, you place your buy order here just before market close and place your initial stop just below the low of the day. You would apply this either for an uptrending stock where the price has retracted from or near the trendline or Moving Average, or a ranging stock where price is bouncing off the support line. The trade is reinforced if the Stochastic is in or near the oversold and crossing back upwards, volume on the up day is higher than volume on the down days, and the market as a whole is moving up as well. The benefit with this entry is that you are in early so you capture any bullish move up at the open of the next day, such as gaps. The drawbacks are that you need to be in front of your screen before market close to get your price close to the market close and you may get whipsawed if prices reverse at the open of the next day, thus being stopped out with a small loss. As the price moves up you would move your stop loss to just below the low of each day. Alternative Bullish Reversal Entry An alternative, entry would be to wait for after market close and then start your analysis (easier to do after market close than whilst the market is open and less emotions involved). Place a stop buy order to buy at the open of next trading day just above the high of the bullish green candle. Your stop is placed exactly the same, just below the low of the green bullish candle. The benefits of this alternative entry include you avoid the trade if the price reverses at the open of next day, thus avoiding a potential small loss (in other words you wait for further confirmation on the next trading day), and you avoid trading during market open hours where your emotions can get the better of you. I prefer to do my trading after market close so prefer this alternative. The drawback with this alternative is that you may miss out on bullish news prior to and at the next open, so miss out on some potential profits if prices do gap up at the open. This may also increase your loss on the trade if the prices gaps up then reverses and hits your stop on the same day. However, if you choose this method, then you will just need to incorporate this into your trading plan as potential slippage. Bearish Reversal Pattern So after some short period of strength in the price you would look for a bearish day where the price closes below the previous day’s low, you place your sell short order here just before market close and place your initial stop just above the high of the day. You would apply this either for an downtrending stock where the price has retracted from or near the trendline or Moving Average, or a ranging stock where price is bouncing off the resistance line. The trade is reinforced if the Stochastic is in or near the overbought and crossing back downwards, volume on the up day is higher than volume on the up days, and the market as a whole is moving down as well. The benefit with this entry is that you are in early so you capture any bearish move down at the open of the next day, such as gaps. The drawbacks are that you need to be in front of your screen before market close to get your price close to the market close and you may get whipsawed if prices reverse at the open of the next day, thus being stopped out with a small loss. As the price moves down you would move your stop loss to just above the high of each day. Alternative Bearish Reversal Entry An alternative, entry would be to wait for after market close and then start your analysis (easier to do after market close than whilst the market is open and less emotions involved). Place a stop sell short order to sell at the open of next trading day just below the low of the bearish red candle. Your stop is placed exactly the same, just above the high of the red bearish candle. The benefits of this alternative entry include you avoid the trade if the price reverses at the open of next day, thus avoiding a potential small loss (in other words you wait for further confirmation on the next trading day), and you avoid trading during market open hours where your emotions can get the better of you. I prefer to do my trading after market close so prefer this alternative. The drawback with this alternative is that you may miss out on bearish news prior to and at the next open, so miss out on some potential profits if prices do gap down at the open. This may also increase your loss on the trade if the prices gaps down then reverses and hits your stop on the same day. However, if you choose this method, then you will just need to incorporate this into your trading plan as potential slippage. You could also trade other candle stick patterns is similar ways. And with the long entries you can also use them to get into the market with longer term trend following strategies, you would usually just use a larger stop for longer term trading. To determine the size of your order you would use the price difference between your entry and your stop. You should not be risking more than 1% of your trading capital on any one trade. So if your trading capital is $20,000 your risk per trade should be $200. If you were looking to place your buy at 5.00 and had your initial stop at $4.60, you would divide $200 by $0.40 to get 500 stocks to buy. Using this form of money management you keep your losses down to a maximum of $200 (some trades may be a bit higher due to some slippage which you should allow for in your trading plan), which becomes your R-multiple. Your aim is to have your average win at 3R or higher (3 x your average loss), which will give you a positive expectancy even with a win ratio under 50%. Once you have written down your trading rules you can search stock charts for potential setups. When you find one you can backtest the chart for similar setup over the past few years. For each setup in the past jot down the prices you would have entered at, where you would have set your stop, work out your R, and go day by day, moving your stop as you go, and see where you would have been stopped out. Work out your profit or loss in terms of R for each setup and then add them up. If you get a positive R multiple, then this may be a good stock to trade on this setup. If you get a negative R multiple, then maybe give this stock a miss and look for the next setup. You can setup watch-lists of stocks that perform well for both long setups and short setups, and then trade these stocks when you get a new signal. It can take some time starting off, but once you have got your watch-lists for a particular setup, you just need to keep monitoring those stocks. You can create other watch-lists for other type of setups you have backtested as well." }, { "docid": "332243", "title": "", "text": "You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue." }, { "docid": "246221", "title": "", "text": "ESPP tax treatment is complicated. If you received a discount on the purchase of your stock, that discount is taxable as ordinary income when you sell the stock. Any profit about the market value when the stock was purchased is taxed based upon the holding period of the stock. If you have held the stock less than a year, the profit is taxed at your marginal tax rate (ie taxed as ordinary income). If the stock is held for more than a year, it is taxed at a special capital gains tax rate, which ranges from 0-20% depending on your marginal tax rate (most people pay 15%)." }, { "docid": "130827", "title": "", "text": "\"So is knowledge of unannounced products simply not considered material nonpublic information? Well \"\"material\"\" is relative but it certainly is nonpublic information. And trading based on that information would likely be considered illegal if it is actually material. Many companies require that employees with material non-public info get stock trades approved by their legal department. This protects not only the employee but the employer from SEC scrutiny. If the legal department determines that the employee has non-public info that is the genesis of the stock trade, they might deny the request. In many cases these employees receive stock through ESPP, ISO and/or RSUs and often sell while in possession of information about unannounced products. Just receiving stock as part of as part of a compensation program would not be illegal, provided it was part of a normal compensation package and not deliberately awarded in advance of these types of events. Selling or outright buying stock (including RSUs) with that kind of information would certainly be scrutinized. An employee is granted RSUs, they vest 7 months before announcement of a new product. The employee knows the exact specifications of the product. If they sell the vested stock before the announcement would this constitute insider trading or not? Why? The law is not meant to prevent people from investing in their own company just because they know future plans. So knowledge of an announcement 7 months out may not be considered material. If, however, you sold stock the day (or a week) before some announcement that caused the stock to fall, then that would probably be scrutinized. Or, if you traded shortly before an announcement of a new, revolutionary product that was set to be released in seven months, and the stock rose, then you might be scrutinized. So there is a lot of gray area, but remember that the spirit of the law is to prevent people from benefiting unfairly with non-public information. It would be hard to prove that gaining on a stock trade 7 months before a product announcement would be considered \"\"unfair gain\"\". A lot can happen in that time.\"" }, { "docid": "179398", "title": "", "text": "You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year." }, { "docid": "119940", "title": "", "text": "In addition to what quid said, I think your risk tolerance should depend on how likely you are to need the funds in the near future. Say that you have $100k saved up and you want to decide how to invest it. Then you should ask yourself: The idea here is that if you invest say in stocks (high risk) then the value of your position could drop significantly and you'd potentially have to wait for a long time before it recovers. If you are forced to sell you could make a substantial loss. If you don't urgently need this cash, however, then you can feel relaxed and just wait for the market to reverse again. This is viewing risk through the lens of how likely it is that you'll have to wait a long time to get a substantial amount of your money back, which itself is a function of how likely it is for a substantial downturn to occur in a certain market." }, { "docid": "237718", "title": "", "text": "There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants." }, { "docid": "188839", "title": "", "text": "\"The stock should fall by approximately the amount of the dividend as that is what is paid out. If you have a stock trading at $10/share and it pays a $1/share dividend, the price should drop to $9 as what was trading before the dividend was paid would be both the dividend and the stock itself. If the person bought just for the dividend then it would likely be neutral as there isn't anything extra to be gained. Consider if this wasn't the case. Wouldn't one be able to buy a stock a few days before the dividend and sell just after for a nice profit? That doesn't make sense and is the reason for the drop in price. Similarly, if a stock has a split or spin-off there may be changes in the price to reflect that adjustment in value of the company. If I give you 2 nickels for a dime, the overall value is still 10 cents though this would be 2 coins instead of one. Some charts may show a \"\"Dividend adjusted\"\" price to factor out these transactions so be careful of what prices are quoted.\"" }, { "docid": "474296", "title": "", "text": "\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\"" }, { "docid": "567034", "title": "", "text": "You want to buy when the stock market is at an all-time low for that day. Unfortunately, you don't know the lowest time until the end of the day, and then you, uh can't buy the stock... Now the stock market is not random, but for your case, we can say that effectively, it is. So, when should you buy the stock to hopefully get the lowest price for the day? You should wait for 37% of the day, and then buy when it is lower than it has been for all of that day. Here is a quick example (with fake data): We have 18 points, and 37% of 18 is close to 7. So we discard the first 7 points - and just remember the lowest of those 7. We bear in mind that the lowest for the first 37% was 5. Now we wait until we find a stock which is lower than 5, and we buy at that point: This system is optimal for buying the stock at the lowest price for the day. Why? We want to find the best position to stop automatically ignoring. Why 37%? We know the answer to P(Being in position n) - it's 1/N as there are N toilets, and we can select just 1. Now, what is the chance we select them, given we're in position n? The chance of selecting any of the toilets from 0 to K is 0 - remember we're never going to buy then. So let's move on to the toilets from K+1 and onwards. If K+1 is better than all before it, we have this: But, K+1 might not be the best price from all past and future prices. Maybe K+2 is better. Let's look at K+2 For K+2 we have K/K+1, for K+3 we have K/K+2... So we have: This is a close approximation of the area under 1/x - especially as x → ∞ So 0 + 0 + ... + (K/N) x (1/K + 1/K+1 + 1/K+2 ... + 1/N-1) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) and so P(K) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) Now to simplify, say that x = K/N We can graph this, and find the maximum point so we know the maximum P(K) - or we can use calculus. Here's the graph: Here's the calculus: To apply this back to your situation with the stocks, if your stock updates every 30 seconds, and is open between 09:30 and 16:00, we have 6.5 hours = 390 minutes = 780 refreshes. You should keep track of the lowest price for the first 289 refreshes, and then buy your stock on the next best price. Because x = K/N, the chance of you choosing the best price is 37%. However, the chance of you choosing better than the average stock is above 50% for the day. Remember, this method just tries to mean you don't loose money within the day - if you want to try to minimise losses within the whole trading period, you should scale this up, so you wait 37% of the trading period (e.g. 37% of 3 months) and then select. The maths is taken from Numberphile - Mathematical Way to Choose a Toilet. Finally, one way to lose money a little slower and do some good is with Kiva.org - giving loans to people is developing countries. It's like a bank account with a -1% interest - which is only 1% lower than a lot of banks, and you do some good. I have no affiliation with them." }, { "docid": "168402", "title": "", "text": "\"I am in a different situation, because I earn more than I spend, but I have found that I need to make the money inaccessible if I want to really avoid spending it. I used to just throw my paychecks into a high-yield savings account, but eventually the balance was large enough that a \"\"large purchase\"\" didn't seem like \"\"that much\"\" (because I would have had so much left in the account after the purchase). It was way too easy for me to spend way too much. Now, I invest my savings automatically. The obvious benefit is my money has a much higher growth rate than a simple savings account (especially with fed interest rates so low). I invest most of my savings in 401(k)/IRA retirement accounts, where there are severe penalties for withdrawing prior to retirement age. Then, I invest a significant portion to a regular brokerage account, where the money is invested in stock and bond funds. This money is accessible within a few days of whenever I need it. The remainder of my savings goes into a savings account as cash I can get to at any time. All 3 accounts grow with every paycheck (market fluctuations aside). This 3-tiered system helps me to categorize my savings as \"\"Never, ever touch\"\" (retirement accounts), \"\"Touch, only if I can wait 3 days and am willing to pay taxes\"\" (brokerage account), or \"\"touch whenever you need it, with no penalties\"\" (Savings account). If my savings account grows too much, I'll move money from there to the brokerage account (where it has more growth potential). The longer my money is invested in the brokerage accounts, the less taxes I'll need to pay when I sell/withdraw the funds, so that's even more incentive for me to keep those funds where they are. I have credit cards, so in my opinion, having to wait 3 days for funds from my investment account to become accessible is considered \"\"accessible in an emergency,\"\" because my credit cards can be used to cover a large purchase for 3 days, and as long as I pay it off within the grace period, there's no interest charged. tl;dr investing is probably the smartest way to both grow your money and prevent the urge to spend it right away. My advice is to start with a 401(k) or IRA as soon as you can, since the younger you are, the more time until retirement that your money has to compound. Investing $100 more a month can mean hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in your account when you're ready to retire.\"" }, { "docid": "379023", "title": "", "text": "EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal." }, { "docid": "466777", "title": "", "text": "One thing I've always done is purchase things only through Amazon. And when I feel the need to buy something, I add it to my shopping cart, but not checkout. I do my best to always wait at least a few days before going through checkout. Adding it to my cart fills the need in my head for owning that thing. I've found if I wait a few days, my need to own it goes away enough so that I often end up not buying it." }, { "docid": "282725", "title": "", "text": "\"I've been prompted to turn my comments into an answer - Disclosure - I am a Realtor. I work for an investor for whom an offer on a house he will buy describes him as a \"\"cash buyer.\"\" This phrase most often means one of two things - The buyer has funds that are liquid enough to either wire the cash or produce a cashier's check in some number of days, a week or two would be common. (And not wait for another house to sell) The other point of this is that the seller is not willing to finance the property. The flip side being that the seller will take a down payment and let the buyer pay over time. I am nearly 54, and I'm open to the fact that language changes. Definition follows usage. In personal finance, we refer to a stock/bond/cash mix. Here, the word \"\"cash\"\" simply means money such as money market or short term T-bills. A 60/30/10 mix doesn't mean I have a briefcase of cash under my bed for that 10%. To answer the OP, I'd ask the seller does \"\"cash\"\" mean - Keep in mind, when a seller has a buyer who needs to sell their home first, there can be a chain going a few levels. When it's \"\"turtles all the way down\"\" it becomes too risky to the seller. No, you are not out of luck. I'd open a dialog with the seller or their agent if any. Sales is all about understanding what each person's goal is.\"" }, { "docid": "554910", "title": "", "text": "\"But I don't see how it's any different than buying a stock at a low price and holding on to it for some months. Based on your question, I would say the difference is time. Day trading by its nature is a 6-hour endeavor. If you buy low and are planning to sell high, then you only have a few hours to make this happen. As a previous poster mentioned, there is a lot of \"\"white noise\"\" that occurs on a weekly/daily/hourly/min basis. Long-term investors have the time to wait it out. Although, as a side note, if you were a buy-and-hold investor from the 1960s-early 1980s, then buy and hold was not very good. Is it just the psychological/addictive aspect of it? This is the biggest reason. Day trading is stressful and stress can cause financially destructive decisions such as over-leveraging, over-trading, etc. Why is day trading stressful? Because you are managing hundreds to thousands of trades a year. When combined with the lack of time in a day to make moves, it becomes stressful. Also, many day traders do it full time. Which adds to the pressure to be correct and to be incredible at money managment. A lot of buy-and-hold investors have full time jobs and may only check their positions every month or so.\"" }, { "docid": "444668", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \"\"day-trading\"\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\"" }, { "docid": "133644", "title": "", "text": "Is this an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP)? If so, and there is no required holding period, selling right away is essentially a guaranteed bonus with minimal risk. One caveat is that sometimes it takes a while to actually receive the shares at your brokerage, and in the meantime your company may have an earnings report that could cause the share price to drop. If your discount is only 5%, for example, a bad earnings report could easily wipe that out. The only other cons I can think of is ESPP contributions being withheld from you for months (albeit for a virtually guaranteed return), and it complicates your taxes a bit. On the flip side, another pro is that after you sell the shares, you are more likely to invest that money rather than spend it." }, { "docid": "573077", "title": "", "text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"" }, { "docid": "466711", "title": "", "text": "Because buying at discount provides a considerable safety of margin -- it increases the likelihood of profiting. The margin serves to cushion future adverse price movement. Why is so much effort made to get a small percentage off an investment, if one is then willing to let the investment drop another 20% or more with the reason of being in it for the long term? Nobody can predict the stock price. Now if a long term investor happens to buy some stocks and the market crashes the next day, he could afford to wait for the stock prices to bounce back. Why should he sells immediately to incur a definite loss, should he has confidence in the underlying companies to recover eventually? One can choose to buy wisely, but the market fluctuation is out of his/her control. Wouldn't you agree that he/she should spend much efforts on something that can be controlled?" } ]

[ { "docid": "125298", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on how the program is run. If the company runs the program out of treasury stock (shares that are authorized, but not issued), then there aren't any shares being purchased on the open market. Because of that, the share price wouldn't be affected. If you look in your employer's annual report, you will probably find how the program is run and how many shares are issued annually under that program. By comparing that to the daily trading volume of the company's stock you can gauge whether there's any likelihood of the share price being affected by the employee purchases. That is, of course, if shares are being purchased on the open market. For example, here is Books-A-Million's program, as described in their 2011 annual report: Employee Stock Purchase Plan The Company maintains an employee stock purchase plan under which shares of the Company’s common stock are reserved for purchase by employees at 85% of the fair market value of the common stock at the lower of the market value for the Company’s stock as of the beginning of the fiscal year or the end of the fiscal year. On May 20, 2010, the stockholders of the Company approved an additional 200,000 shares available for issuance under the plan, bringing the aggregate number of shares that may be awarded to 600,000. Of the total reserved shares, 391,987, 373,432 and 289,031 shares have been purchased as of January 29, 2011, January 30, 2010 and January 31, 2009, respectively. This describes an instance of the employee purchase program being run from unissued stock, not open market purchases. From it, we can tell 18,555 shares were issued during the past fiscal year. As their average daily volume is ~40,000 shares, if the program were run from a single open market purchase, it would have potential to \"\"move the market\"\". One would think, though, that a company running it from open market purchases would spread the purchases over a period of time to avoid running up the price on themselves.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "554910", "title": "", "text": "\"But I don't see how it's any different than buying a stock at a low price and holding on to it for some months. Based on your question, I would say the difference is time. Day trading by its nature is a 6-hour endeavor. If you buy low and are planning to sell high, then you only have a few hours to make this happen. As a previous poster mentioned, there is a lot of \"\"white noise\"\" that occurs on a weekly/daily/hourly/min basis. Long-term investors have the time to wait it out. Although, as a side note, if you were a buy-and-hold investor from the 1960s-early 1980s, then buy and hold was not very good. Is it just the psychological/addictive aspect of it? This is the biggest reason. Day trading is stressful and stress can cause financially destructive decisions such as over-leveraging, over-trading, etc. Why is day trading stressful? Because you are managing hundreds to thousands of trades a year. When combined with the lack of time in a day to make moves, it becomes stressful. Also, many day traders do it full time. Which adds to the pressure to be correct and to be incredible at money managment. A lot of buy-and-hold investors have full time jobs and may only check their positions every month or so.\"" }, { "docid": "337049", "title": "", "text": "Say I am an employee of Facebook and I will be able to sell stares at enough of a profit to pay of my mortgage and have enough money left to cover my living costs for many years. I also believe that there is a 95% chance that the stock price will go up in the next few years. Do I take a 5% risk, when I can transform my life without taking any risk? (The USA tax system as explained by JoeTaxpayer increases the risk.) So you have a person being very logical and selling stocks that they believe will go up in value by more than any other investment they could have. It is called risk control. (Lot of people will know the above; therefore some people will delay buying stock until Lock Up expiration day hoping the price will be lower on that day. So the price may not go down.)" }, { "docid": "474296", "title": "", "text": "\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\"" }, { "docid": "66201", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a few major risks to doing something like that. First, you should never invest money you can't afford to lose. An emergency fund is money you can't afford to lose - by definition, you may need to have quick access to that money. If you determine that you need, for example, $3000 in emergency savings, that means that you need to have at least $3000 at all times - if you lose $500, then you now only have $2500 in emergency savings. Imagine what could've happened if you had invested your emergency savings during the 2008 crash, for example; you could easily have been in a position where you lost both your job and a good portion of your emergency savings at the same time, which is a terrible position to be in. If the car breaks down, you can't really say \"\"now's a bad time, wait until the stock market bounces back.\"\" Second, with brokerage accounts, there may be a delay before you can actually access the money or transfer it to an account that you can actually withdraw cash from or write checks against (but some of this depends on the exact arrangement you have with your bank). This can be a problem if you're in a situation where you need immediate access to the money - if your furnace breaks in the middle of winter, you probably don't want to wait a few days for the sale and transfer to go through before you can have it fixed. Third, you can be forced to sell the investments at an unfavorable price because you're not sure when you're going to need it. You'd also likely incur trading fees and/or early withdrawal penalties when you tried to withdraw the money. Think about it this way: if you buy a bond that matures in 5 years, you're effectively betting that you won't have an emergency for the next 5 years. If you do, you'll have to either sell the bond or, if you're allowed to get the money back early, you'll likely forfeit a good amount of the interest you earned in the process (which kind of kills the point of buying the bond in the first place). Edit: As @Barmar pointed out in the comments, you may also have to pay taxes on the profits if you sell at a favorable price. In the U.S. at least, capital gains on stuff held for less than a year is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate and stuff held longer than a year is taxed at the long-term capital gains tax rate. So, if you hold the investment for less than a year, you're opening yourself up to the risks of short-term stock fluctuations as well as potential tax penalties, so if you put your emergency fund in stocks you're essentially betting that you won't have an emergency that year (which by definition you can't know). The purpose of an emergency fund is just that - to be an emergency fund. Its purpose isn't really to make money.\"" }, { "docid": "123911", "title": "", "text": "\"Are there any known protections against obvious typos in the stock systems themselves? Do you know of stock exchanges which flags or rejects obviously wrong buy or sell orders (e.g., selling something for 0.1% of its highest buy order, or buying something at 1000 times the current sell order)? Does the stock exchange \"\"community\"\" have some sort of \"\"rules of conduct\"\" for this? Yes and No. Most Stock Exchanges for certain set of stocks have circuit breakers that are more to restrict panic selling or artificial drop in prices. The kind of controls you are mentioning can't be put on individual trades; as stock exchanges are meant to guarantee / provide neutral ground for the price to be determined by demand / supply. There are quite a few companies that have quickly lost value and become worthless with a day or two. Hence it becomes difficult to determine if something is error by an individual or not. Once an order is submitted to the exchange, it can't afford the to and fro to verify ... as even few seconds make a different in volatile markets. The kind of errors reported are difficult for an individual to make as he would not own the kind of stocks and the stock broker will stop the trade from being placed.\"" }, { "docid": "379023", "title": "", "text": "EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal." }, { "docid": "89484", "title": "", "text": "You could have both options exercised (and assigned to you) on the same day, but I don't think you could lose money on both on the same day. The reason is that while exercises are immediate, assignments are processed after the markets close at the end of each day. See http://www.888options.com/help/faq/assignment.jsp for details. So you would get both assignments at the same time, that night. The net effect should be that you don't own any stock (someone would put you the stock, then it'd be called away) and you don't have the options anymore. You should have incoming cash of $1500 selling the stock to the call exerciser and outgoing cash of $1300 buying from the put exerciser, right? So you would have no more options but $200 more cash in your account in the morning. You bought at 13 and sold at 15. This options position is an agreement to buy at 13 and sell at 15 at someone else's option. The way you lose money is if one of the options isn't exercised while the other is, i.e. if the stock is below 13 so nobody is going to opt to buy from you at 15, but they'll sell to you at 13; or above 15 so nobody is going to opt to sell to you at 13, but they'll buy from you at 15. You make money if neither is exercised (you keep the premium you sold for) or both are exercised (you keep the gap between the two, plus the premium). Having both exercised is surely rare, since early exercise is rare to begin with, and tends to happen when options are deep in the money; so you'd expect both to be exercised if both are deep in the money at some point. Having both be exercised on the same day ... can't be common, but it's maybe most likely just before expiration with minimal time value, if the stock moves around quickly so both options are in the money at some point during the day." }, { "docid": "170628", "title": "", "text": "So how often do investors really lose money? The short answer is, every day. Let's first examine your assumptions: If the price of the share gets lower, the investor can just wait until it gets higher. What are the chances that it won't forever, or for years? There are many stocks whose price goes down and then down further and then to zero. The most apparent example is, of course, Enron. The stock went from about $90 per share to zero in about 18 months. For it to have been sold at $90, obviously, someone had to buy it. Almost no matter where they sold it, they lost money. If they didn't sell it, when the stock was worthless, they lost money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#/media/File:EnronStockPriceAugust2000toJanuary2001.svg There are more modern examples of companies that are declining in a rapidly changing market. For example, Sears Holdings is getting beat down by Amazon and many other on-line retailers. I suspect that if you buy it today and wait for it to go higher, you will be disappointed. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ASHLD&ei=E8_fWIjWGsSGmAGx7b_IAw The more common way to lose money is to either not have a plan or not stick to the plan. Disciplined investors typically plan to buy quality stocks at a fair price and hold them long enough for increasing sales and profits to bring the stock price up. If, later, he hears a bit of bad news about his stock and decides to sell out of panic or fear and become a trader instead of keeping to the plan to remain a disciplined investor, he is likely to lose money. He will lose because no-one can predict accurately that a stock is going down and will never recover; nor can he predict accurately when a stock is going up and will never falter. The chance of bankruptcy (especially for huge companies like Apple) is really low, as I see it, but I may be wrong. Thousands of people lost billions of dollars thinking that about Enron, too. I too believe Apple is a fine stock with excellent prospects, but technology changes and markets change. Twenty or thirty years from now, it may be a different case." }, { "docid": "90085", "title": "", "text": "Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) were heavily neutered by U.S. tax laws a few years ago, and many companies have cut them way back. While discounts of 15% were common a decade ago, now a company can only offer negligible discounts of 5% or less (tax free), and you can just as easily get that from fluctuations in the market. These are the features to look for to determine if the ESPP is even worth the effort: As for a cash value, if a plan has at least one of those features, (and you believe the stock has real long term value), you still have to determine how much of your money you can afford to divert into stock. If the discount is 5%, the company is paying you an extra 5% on the money you put into the plan." }, { "docid": "300698", "title": "", "text": "One answer in four days tells you this is a niche, else there should be many replies by now. The bible is McMillan on Options Note - I link to the 1996 edition which starts at 39 cents, the latest revision will set you back $30 used. The word bible says it all, it offers a great course in options, everything you need to know. You don't get a special account for option trading. You just apply to your regular broker, so depending what you wish to do, the amount starts at You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that. Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000. Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience. You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that. Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000. Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience." }, { "docid": "282725", "title": "", "text": "\"I've been prompted to turn my comments into an answer - Disclosure - I am a Realtor. I work for an investor for whom an offer on a house he will buy describes him as a \"\"cash buyer.\"\" This phrase most often means one of two things - The buyer has funds that are liquid enough to either wire the cash or produce a cashier's check in some number of days, a week or two would be common. (And not wait for another house to sell) The other point of this is that the seller is not willing to finance the property. The flip side being that the seller will take a down payment and let the buyer pay over time. I am nearly 54, and I'm open to the fact that language changes. Definition follows usage. In personal finance, we refer to a stock/bond/cash mix. Here, the word \"\"cash\"\" simply means money such as money market or short term T-bills. A 60/30/10 mix doesn't mean I have a briefcase of cash under my bed for that 10%. To answer the OP, I'd ask the seller does \"\"cash\"\" mean - Keep in mind, when a seller has a buyer who needs to sell their home first, there can be a chain going a few levels. When it's \"\"turtles all the way down\"\" it becomes too risky to the seller. No, you are not out of luck. I'd open a dialog with the seller or their agent if any. Sales is all about understanding what each person's goal is.\"" }, { "docid": "393164", "title": "", "text": "Should I invest money in the pre-IPO stocks soon to be offered by the company that I work for? Is it wise to do this? What should I be thinking about? What are the risks? The last time I was offered pre-IPO friends and family stock, I purchased half of my allotment, and had my parents purchase the other half. Since I had a 6-month blackout period, I had to hold my portion. My parents sold their portion one day after the IPO. The price went up dramatically for about a day and a half, then dived continuously. My portion ended up being worthless. My parents made a few bucks. Good for them. Not a huge deal either way, since my cost was relatively low. If I had a chance to do it again, I'd give it all to friends or family instead of splitting it, and have them sell quickly if they realized a profit. You might be luckier than I was." }, { "docid": "264820", "title": "", "text": "\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"" }, { "docid": "407602", "title": "", "text": "Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks." }, { "docid": "45156", "title": "", "text": "\"I went to a B&amp;N the other day to buy the best selling non-fiction book of all time that was being promoted on the radio/TV/etc.... and of course they were out of it. When I asked the guy why they wouldn't have the most popular thing at their store (like milk at a grocery store or something). He said, \"\"Yeah, it's usually in high demand so we don't have it.\"\" Great way to run a company!! Stock your shelves full of the unpopular stuff and never order enough of the HIGHEST SELLING BOOKS OF ALL TIME! Can't wait for the box stores to go down.\"" }, { "docid": "130827", "title": "", "text": "\"So is knowledge of unannounced products simply not considered material nonpublic information? Well \"\"material\"\" is relative but it certainly is nonpublic information. And trading based on that information would likely be considered illegal if it is actually material. Many companies require that employees with material non-public info get stock trades approved by their legal department. This protects not only the employee but the employer from SEC scrutiny. If the legal department determines that the employee has non-public info that is the genesis of the stock trade, they might deny the request. In many cases these employees receive stock through ESPP, ISO and/or RSUs and often sell while in possession of information about unannounced products. Just receiving stock as part of as part of a compensation program would not be illegal, provided it was part of a normal compensation package and not deliberately awarded in advance of these types of events. Selling or outright buying stock (including RSUs) with that kind of information would certainly be scrutinized. An employee is granted RSUs, they vest 7 months before announcement of a new product. The employee knows the exact specifications of the product. If they sell the vested stock before the announcement would this constitute insider trading or not? Why? The law is not meant to prevent people from investing in their own company just because they know future plans. So knowledge of an announcement 7 months out may not be considered material. If, however, you sold stock the day (or a week) before some announcement that caused the stock to fall, then that would probably be scrutinized. Or, if you traded shortly before an announcement of a new, revolutionary product that was set to be released in seven months, and the stock rose, then you might be scrutinized. So there is a lot of gray area, but remember that the spirit of the law is to prevent people from benefiting unfairly with non-public information. It would be hard to prove that gaining on a stock trade 7 months before a product announcement would be considered \"\"unfair gain\"\". A lot can happen in that time.\"" }, { "docid": "289989", "title": "", "text": "If the stock has dropped from $10 to $2 and now is range trading between $2 and $3, and you were not able to sell your shares earlier, then I would no be holding on to them now. As soon as the price hit $3 sell them. After you have sold them and you noticed the stock still range trading one strategy you could apply is to go long after the price bounces off the $2 support placing a stop just below $2, then as the price moves up you trail your stop up with the price. As it starts getting close to $3 tighten your stop. If it keeps range trading and bounces off the resistance at $3 and you get stopped out, you can either go short and reverse the process or wait for it to bounce off the support at $2 again. One word of warning though, the longer a stock range trades, the bigger the outbreak out of the rage (either up or down) will be, that is the reason why you should first wait for confirmation that the price has bounced off support/resistance before opening a position, and secondly why you should use a stop loss to get you out instead of just selling when it hits $3, because if it breaks through $3 you can continue profiting as it moves up." }, { "docid": "238121", "title": "", "text": "\"@sdg - If you can be flippant, I can be pedantic. Insider Trading is not illegal. Any employee of a company can be an insider, yet most of their trades are perfectly legal. What is illegal is trading on Inside Information. Such information may be available to those within a company, or those who have some contact with an employee. In fact, if I am seated at a restaurant table and hear Bill and Warren talking about a purchase they plan to make, I am in possession of inside information and risk prosecution should I purchase shares and profit. Often, a company will have a \"\"quiet period\"\" before earnings reports or potential stock-price-moving-news. During this time, employees are forbidden from buying or selling shares, excluding those that would be automatically bought in their retirement accounts or ESPP.\"" }, { "docid": "229573", "title": "", "text": "What does it mean when some one says that today there was a lot of net selling or buying in a stock. What does it mean because for every selling there is also a buying going on then how can you determine a selling or buying ? Generally if the price of stock has gone down compared to previous day, the trend is of selling. As the price can be volatile, there maybe few trades that are above close price of previous day, or below close price of previous day. How can you calculate average trade price for a stock It is simple {sum of all [price*quantity]}/quantity. Related question Equity market inflow meaning" } ]

[ { "docid": "257853", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "550164", "title": "", "text": "Yes and no. Courts do understand the idea of tyranny of the majority. Specifically, actions that hurt the company for personal gain is still theft against the minority shareholders. It's common misconception that this fiduciary duty means that a CEO's job is to raise the price of their stock. The truth is, stock price is a number that has an extremely tenuous relation to actual company health. So, it's entirely possible for a shareholder lawsuit to happen. It's just typically cheaper and less hassle to sell the stocks for a loss and get out while they can." }, { "docid": "145864", "title": "", "text": "\"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \"\"buy out\"\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \"\"buy you out\"\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \"\"I'm on track for $2M this year\"\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\"" }, { "docid": "554015", "title": "", "text": "What account you put it in depends on why you have those different accounts. First, if you have them due to regulatory requirements, then you of course must follow said regulations. I doubt that's the case here. Otherwise, you might be splitting based on how they trade (ETFs trade as stocks) or you could be splitting based on how you build a portfolio out of them. When you build a non-speculative stock portfolio, you typically want to limit your holdings in a single stock to a fairly small portion of your portfolio (say, 3%) to limit your exposure to bad stuff happening to a single company. That doesn't apply nearly a much to mutual funds, especially index funds. ETFs are much more like mutual funds here. You can also, of course, create an ETF account and put them there. You also say you have a market index account, what is that used for?" }, { "docid": "534755", "title": "", "text": "There is a strategy called merger-arbitrage where you buy the stock of the acquired company when it sells for less than the final acquisition price. Usually the price will rise to about the acquisition price fairly rapidly after the merge is announced, so you have to move fast. The danger is that the merger gets called off (regulatory reasons, the acquired company board votes no) and you get left holding shares bought at a price higher than the price after the merger collapses. This is kind of an advanced strategy and a tough one to back test since each M&A deal is unique." }, { "docid": "277190", "title": "", "text": "Buying back shares is an indication that the company does not believe that there is justification to invest in production, employee training, or technology. In the end, what it mostly does is pump up the share price, which very directly pumps up the value of share-based compensation that the CEO has. On mergers and acquisitions, I don't have the time to look for the source right now, but I've read a few reports that showed that the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions actually erodes the value when compared to the two separate companies. They cite reasons like overblown expectations, clash in company cultures, and manipulations up top as a reason to do this. On paper, they all sound great, but these are very dificult things to operationalise which only the very best management teams manage to work out. The above parties are part of the real economy as long as they are companies that produce goods or services, which is often the case. It contrasts with the paper economy which is the world of bonds, hedge funds, share markets, and commodity markets. The money moving around in this world seldom makes a diference to anybody but the directly involved. The share market is a classic example of this. Although the value of stocks may be high, most people who own the stocks don't actually have more money to spend, unless, obviously they sell the shares. The value is on paper until it is transacted, and can collapse like a house of cards. The real economy is much more stable and resiliant, and has a large impact on the majority of the population. It won't vary hugely from one month to the next like the stock market can. I don't have any educaton in economics other than curiosity on how these things work. I read Krugman's blog and generally google any term or concept that tickles my fancy. I also partake in quite a few discussions here on reddit that frequently prompt me to go investiage some more. I don't proport to be some sort of expert, but I do have concise ideas of how things work, and have a very strong bias of looking at evidence and fact-based postulations rather than ideology." }, { "docid": "151132", "title": "", "text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"" }, { "docid": "159703", "title": "", "text": "How you are taxed will depend on what kind of stock awards they are. The value will be determined by the company that issues it, and appropriate tax forms will be sent to you to include with your taxes. The way the value is determined is an accounting question that is off-topic here, but the value will be stated on your stock award paperwork. If you are awarded the stock directly then that value will be taxed as ordinary income. If you are awarded options, then you can purchase the stock to start the clock on long-term capital gains, but you will not incur any tax liability through the initial purchase. If the company is sold privately and you have held the stock for over 1 year, then yes, it will be taxed as a long-term capital gain. If you receive/exercise the stock less than 1 year before such an acquisition, then it will be considered a short-term capital gain and will be taxed as ordinary income." }, { "docid": "418336", "title": "", "text": "Not sure if I follow your question completely. Re: What if some fraud takes place that's too big even for it to fund? SIPC does not fund anything. What it does is takes over the troubled brokerage firm, books / assets and returns the money faster. Refer to SIPC - What SIPC Covers... What it Does Not and more specifically SIPC - Why We Are Not the FDIC. SIPC is free for ordinary investors. To get the same from elsewhere one has to pay the premium. Edit: The event we are saying is a large brokrage firm, takes all of the Margin Money from Customer Accounts and loses it and also sell off all the stocks actually shown as being held in customer account ... that would be to big. While its not clear as to what exactly will happens, my guess is that the limits per customers will go down as initial payments. Subsequent payments will only be done after recover of funds from the bankrupt firm. What normally happens when a brokrage firm goes down is some of the money from customers account is diverted ... stocks are typically safe and not diverted. Hence the way SIPC works is that it will give the money back to customer faster to individuals. In absence of SIPC individual investors would have had to fight for themselves." }, { "docid": "104188", "title": "", "text": "This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part. Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you. Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action. If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares. There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise. In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company. Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say. But either way, there is nothing you can or should do." }, { "docid": "395409", "title": "", "text": "This depends on what your definition of the word is is. Strictly speaking, you are only investing in a company when you buy stock from them somehow. This is usually done during an IPO or a secondary offering. Or, if you are someone like Warren Buffet or an institutional investor, you strike a deal with the company to buy shares directly from them. Otherwise, your money goes to someone else. Merriam-Webster defines speculate as 1b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively However, it also defines it as: 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations The typical use of the term stock speculation vs stock investing involves definition 1b. This alludes to the idea that little to no research was done about the stock. This may be due to a lack of time, interest, knowledge, etc., or it may be due to a lack of information. The former usually has a negative connotation. The latter may have a negative connotation, though usually the connotation is one of greater risk. Strictly speaking, definition 2 includes investing as you define it along with investing in securities/commodities." }, { "docid": "541377", "title": "", "text": "During mergers they try to create efficiencies. Typically these efficiencies happen in the office, one HR person instead of two, less secretaries, less middle managers. The number of maintenance people is normally based off of the number of properties. You likely will be safe in your position, but no one knows for sure." }, { "docid": "484190", "title": "", "text": "\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\"" }, { "docid": "118485", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say \"\"interest\"\", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A \"\"bad year\"\" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases \"\"interest\"\" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that \"\"Roth IRA fund\"\" doesn't really tell you what's \"\"inside\"\" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a \"\"target retirement date\"\"-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total \"\"interest\"\" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about \"\"standard growth\"\" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much \"\"growth\"\" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (\"\"How much do you expect growth to be per year?\"\") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not \"\"rules\"\" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected.\"" }, { "docid": "70127", "title": "", "text": "I just started in ER a month ago - I think part of it is being in the right place at the right time because the industry is smaller than IB (less positions, less openings). I came from an accounting background and during the interview process I really sold how much I enjoyed investing personally (knew the fundamentals, had decent stock picks/pitches), which happened to be what the hiring managers were looking for. Hope this helps and happy to answer any other questions you might have!" }, { "docid": "276960", "title": "", "text": "I'll just add this: In the best hedge funds and proprietary trading funds, stock selection is approached very scientifically in order to minimize losses/maximize gains. Researchers think of a trading idea and carefully test it to see which methods of stock selection work and how well, and finally they combine them. Every day researchers update their models based on the past performance of each indicator. All this is just too much work to be done manually. Firms use machine learning methods to understand markets. They try to figure out what is normal, what did not happen correctly at a specific time, what will happen in future. For instance, they use deep learning networks to look at unlabeled data, and figure out what is normal and what is not. These networks can analyze an unstructured haystack of noise, and separate out the signal. This is very relevant to finance and markets because finding the patterns and anomalies in market data has been the bread and butter of traders for decades. Deep learning networks give us applications like feature learning. By 'features,' I'm referring to certain attributes in data that indicate an event. By anticipating them, we can help predict future price movements. New technology is allowing us to break new ground in managing risk, to be a-typical and manage risk in ever-improving ways. It's the responsibility of every trader, whether working for themselves or others, to take advantage of this technology to improve the collective investing experience. I care very deeply about this. I have many close friends, in the finance world and without, who have lost large amounts of money to poor trade tools and lack of transparency." }, { "docid": "575875", "title": "", "text": "No, unvested money returns to the employer, its not yours. They should send you W2 which will only show the actual (vested) monies you got." }, { "docid": "176327", "title": "", "text": "\"From my recollection of Warren Buffett's book \"\"Warren Buffett and the Art of Arbitrage\"\", the following factors determine the difference between the market price of a stock and the future expected price of an acquisition or merger: Time: Assuming the deal will close, the market price should approach the offer price as the closing date approaches. The fact that there is a 14% spread partially reflects the time value of money. Probability: Things could happen between now and closing date which could derail the deal. The higher the spread the more likely the market thinks the deal will not occur. For example, LO shareholders could reject the offer saying it is too low, or anti-trust regulators could say the deal is anti-competitive. Part of this 14% spread indicates the probability of the deal completing.\"" }, { "docid": "370304", "title": "", "text": "I've never seen a dividend, split or other corporate action during the day, but I have seen trade suspended a few times when something big happened. The market opening price is not in general the same as the close of the previous day. It can gap up or down and does frequently. I don't know of an api to find out if the dividend was cash or stock, but stock dividends are a lot less common." }, { "docid": "89947", "title": "", "text": "\"I would add to the other excellent answers that another factor besides just high unemployment numbers is the fear people have regarding the \"\"financial\"\" aspects of the country, that is the value of stocks and the value of the dollar. When the economy is sluggish it means people aren't buying enough, therefore companies aren't making enough, therefore their profits are too low and people start to divest from them, and stock prices drop. Or even the fear of this happening can induce people to sell off shares. The point is, people are worried \"\"in this economy\"\" because if--due to unemployment, low spending/consumer confidence--the stock market crashes again as it did in 2008/09, that represents a lot of savings lost, e.g. 40-50% of what one was counting on to retire with, particularly if you panic sell at the bottom. Now suddenly it's as if you had a huge robbery, and you will have to work longer into your retirement years than you'd planned. Similarly, if, due to monetary policy, the U.S. inflates the dollar, what one saved for retirement may not be sufficient. (These arguments are true for shorter periods than just one's retirement, but just taking that as an example). So it's not just unemployment that is worrisome \"\"in this economy\"\". This said, I agree with George Marian that one ought to be careful and plan well regardless of the winds of the economy. I guess for most people (and companies), though, \"\"in this economy\"\" means they can't get away with the kind of carelessness they might have during a boom.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "510875", "title": "", "text": "I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company. In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same. In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent." } ]

[ { "docid": "176327", "title": "", "text": "\"From my recollection of Warren Buffett's book \"\"Warren Buffett and the Art of Arbitrage\"\", the following factors determine the difference between the market price of a stock and the future expected price of an acquisition or merger: Time: Assuming the deal will close, the market price should approach the offer price as the closing date approaches. The fact that there is a 14% spread partially reflects the time value of money. Probability: Things could happen between now and closing date which could derail the deal. The higher the spread the more likely the market thinks the deal will not occur. For example, LO shareholders could reject the offer saying it is too low, or anti-trust regulators could say the deal is anti-competitive. Part of this 14% spread indicates the probability of the deal completing.\"" }, { "docid": "534370", "title": "", "text": "In the United States, when key people in a company buy or sell shares there are reporting requirements. The definition of key people includes people like the CEO, and large shareholders. There are also rules that can lock out their ability to buy and sell shares during periods where their insider knowledge would give them an advantage. These reporting rules are to level the playing field regarding news that will impact the stock price. These rules are different than the reporting rules that the IRS has to be able to tax capital gains. These are also separate than the registration rules for the shares so that you get all the benefits of owning the stock (dividends, voting at the annual meeting, voting on a merger or acquisition)." }, { "docid": "575875", "title": "", "text": "No, unvested money returns to the employer, its not yours. They should send you W2 which will only show the actual (vested) monies you got." }, { "docid": "413924", "title": "", "text": "I could be wrong but by acquisition all it does is kill competition that a company faces. By killing competition is it explicitly implied that they reduce innovation within the company? If they aren't faced against competition they aren't forced to compete and innovate. But is this always the case? Is there any reason why these companies would invest in R&amp;D after their acquisitions? Also what would this mean for the consumer, by acquisitions and reduced competitions we we as consumers have no choice but to pay up whatever they charge. I wonder if governmental agencies would place a cap on the prices they charge?" }, { "docid": "152151", "title": "", "text": "A big issue for historical data in banking is that they don't/can't reside within a single system. Archives of typical bank will include dozen(s) of different archives made by different companies on different, incompatible systems. For example, see http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/big-bank-theory-chart-large.jpg as an illustration of bank mergers and acquisitions, and AFAIK that doesn't include many smaller deals. For any given account, it's 10-year history might be on some different system. Often, when integrating such systems, a compromise is made - if bank A acquires bank B that has earlier acquired bank C, then if the acquisition of C was a few years ago, then you can skip integrating the archives of C in your online systems, keep them separate, and use them only when/if needed (and minimize that need by hefty fees). Since the price list and services are supposed to be equal for everyone, then no matter how your accounts originated, if 10% of archives are an expensive enough problem to integrate, then it makes financial sense to restrict access to 100% of archives older than some arbitrary threshold." }, { "docid": "53839", "title": "", "text": "Well first of all, they clawed back 75 mln of those bonuses paid out, so they really didn't get paid that money. Second, not every executive, not even probably more than one executive, was even aware this was happening. There is one who **might** have known it was happening, but the reality is that a lot of these decisions and plans are implemented several levels down from the executive team. The executives do not get involved in day to day shit typically. Third, those bonuses to executives are paid out in stock options. Stock options glean their value from the price of the stock. If the stock price goes down, then their bonuses lose value or become worthless, essentially meaning that they get reductions in pay or no bonus when the stock price goes down. So if the scandal had no affect on the stock price, why wouldn't they get paid their bonuses? The stock is the best indicator of the public's reaction to the entirety of the bank." }, { "docid": "280111", "title": "", "text": "\"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \"\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\"\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\"" }, { "docid": "277190", "title": "", "text": "Buying back shares is an indication that the company does not believe that there is justification to invest in production, employee training, or technology. In the end, what it mostly does is pump up the share price, which very directly pumps up the value of share-based compensation that the CEO has. On mergers and acquisitions, I don't have the time to look for the source right now, but I've read a few reports that showed that the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions actually erodes the value when compared to the two separate companies. They cite reasons like overblown expectations, clash in company cultures, and manipulations up top as a reason to do this. On paper, they all sound great, but these are very dificult things to operationalise which only the very best management teams manage to work out. The above parties are part of the real economy as long as they are companies that produce goods or services, which is often the case. It contrasts with the paper economy which is the world of bonds, hedge funds, share markets, and commodity markets. The money moving around in this world seldom makes a diference to anybody but the directly involved. The share market is a classic example of this. Although the value of stocks may be high, most people who own the stocks don't actually have more money to spend, unless, obviously they sell the shares. The value is on paper until it is transacted, and can collapse like a house of cards. The real economy is much more stable and resiliant, and has a large impact on the majority of the population. It won't vary hugely from one month to the next like the stock market can. I don't have any educaton in economics other than curiosity on how these things work. I read Krugman's blog and generally google any term or concept that tickles my fancy. I also partake in quite a few discussions here on reddit that frequently prompt me to go investiage some more. I don't proport to be some sort of expert, but I do have concise ideas of how things work, and have a very strong bias of looking at evidence and fact-based postulations rather than ideology." }, { "docid": "118485", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say \"\"interest\"\", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A \"\"bad year\"\" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases \"\"interest\"\" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that \"\"Roth IRA fund\"\" doesn't really tell you what's \"\"inside\"\" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a \"\"target retirement date\"\"-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total \"\"interest\"\" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about \"\"standard growth\"\" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much \"\"growth\"\" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (\"\"How much do you expect growth to be per year?\"\") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not \"\"rules\"\" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected.\"" }, { "docid": "324470", "title": "", "text": "Broadly, there's a bunch of stuff you need to be accounting for that's not reflected in the above, which will impact the A/D profile of an acquisition: * Consideration paid (all cash on substantially the same terms is going to be more accretive than an all-stock transaction...because in the latter, your denominator is much bigger) * Shares outstanding (including repurchases, in-kind dividends and option exercise) * Financing / interest expense * Upside / base / downside case for all of your assumptions - best to have a toggle based on a CHOOSE function that will allow the user to easily toggle between these I'm not sure what EBITDA is getting you. EPS accretion/dilution typically looks at earnings, but you could also look at Cash EPS A/D which measures OCF/shares outstanding. The point is, this really depends on how back of the envelope you want the A/D computation to be. At a minimum, you need an earnings schedule projected over the next 2-3 years, and you need a schedule reflecting outstanding shares over the same time period. Your earnings buildout can have varying degrees of granularity. You can project cost synergies over the forecast period, which most obviously is going to affect your earnings, but you can also drill down further. Financing, transaction fees, etc. Your writeups and writedowns from your B/S combination may result in certain deferred tax items that will affect your bottom line over the forecast period. Your share schedule can also have varying degrees of complexity. One way to do it is to just presume that the company will not issue any more shares, and will not repurchase any shares, and that there will be no options exercised, over the forecast period. This is a bad series of assumptions. It is likely that as options vest, if in the money, they will be exercised, resulting in dilution for existing shareholders. It is also likely that certain preferred shareholders and optionholders are going to experience adjustments to the conversion prices based on antidilution provisions in their securities. These may be but are not always disclosed in the 10K. Last point - models are tools. What are you trying to build an accretion/dilution model for? This will affect and determine the degree of granularity you'll want to go into." }, { "docid": "224714", "title": "", "text": "http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar would note some options expiration this week that may be a clue as this would be the typical end of quarter stuff so I suspect it may happen each quarter. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp would note in part: Triple witching occurs when the contracts for stock index futures, stock index options and stock options expire on the same day. Triple witching days happen four times a year on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. Triple witching days, particularly the final hour of trading preceding the closing bell, can result in escalated trading activity and volatility as traders close, roll out or offset their expiring positions. June 17 would be the 3rd Friday as the 3rd and 10th were the previous two in the month." }, { "docid": "554015", "title": "", "text": "What account you put it in depends on why you have those different accounts. First, if you have them due to regulatory requirements, then you of course must follow said regulations. I doubt that's the case here. Otherwise, you might be splitting based on how they trade (ETFs trade as stocks) or you could be splitting based on how you build a portfolio out of them. When you build a non-speculative stock portfolio, you typically want to limit your holdings in a single stock to a fairly small portion of your portfolio (say, 3%) to limit your exposure to bad stuff happening to a single company. That doesn't apply nearly a much to mutual funds, especially index funds. ETFs are much more like mutual funds here. You can also, of course, create an ETF account and put them there. You also say you have a market index account, what is that used for?" }, { "docid": "70127", "title": "", "text": "I just started in ER a month ago - I think part of it is being in the right place at the right time because the industry is smaller than IB (less positions, less openings). I came from an accounting background and during the interview process I really sold how much I enjoyed investing personally (knew the fundamentals, had decent stock picks/pitches), which happened to be what the hiring managers were looking for. Hope this helps and happy to answer any other questions you might have!" }, { "docid": "194240", "title": "", "text": "\"One idea: If you came up with a model to calculate a \"\"fair price range\"\" for a stock, then any time the market price were to go below the range it could be a buy signal, and above the range it could be a sell signal. There are many ways to do stock valuation using fundamental analysis tools and ratios: dividend discount model, PEG, etc. See Wikipedia - Stock valuation. And while many of the inputs to such a \"\"fair price range\"\" calculation might only change once per quarter, market prices and peer/sector statistics move more frequently or at different times and could generate signals to buy/sell the stock even if its own inputs to the calculation remain static over the period. For multinationals that have a lot of assets and income denominated in other currencies, foreign exchange rates provide another set of interesting inputs. I also think it's important to recognize that with fundamental analysis, there will be extended periods when there are no buy signals for a stock, because the stocks of many popular, profitable companies never go \"\"on sale\"\", except perhaps during a panic. Moreover, during a bull market and especially during a bubble, there may be very few stocks worth buying. Fundamental analysis is designed to prevent one from overpaying for a stock, so even if there is interesting volume and price movement for the stock, there should still be no signal if that action happens well beyond the stock's fair price. (Otherwise, it isn't fundamental analysis — it's technical analysis.) Whereas technical analysis can, by definition, generate far more signals because it largely ignores the fundamentals, which can make even an overvalued stock's movement interesting enough to generate signals.\"" }, { "docid": "241175", "title": "", "text": "Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides." }, { "docid": "454224", "title": "", "text": "A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker." }, { "docid": "580733", "title": "", "text": "I think the dividend fund may not be what youre looking for. You mentioned you want growth, not income. But I think of dividend stocks as income stocks, not growth. They pay a dividend because these are established companies that do not need to invest so much in capex anymore, so they return it to shareholders. In other words, they are past their growth phase. These are what you want to hold when you have a large nest egg, you are ready to retire, and just want to make a couple percent a year without having to worry as much about market fluctuations. The Russel ETF you mentioned and other small caps are I think what you are after. I recently made a post here about the difference between index funds and active funds. The difference is very small. That is, in any given year, many active ETFs will beat them, many wont. It depends entirely on the market conditions at the time. Under certain conditions the small caps will outperform the S&P, definitely. However, under other conditioned, such as global growth slowdown, they are typically the first to fall. Based on your comments, like how you mentioned you dont want to sell, I think index funds should make up a decent size portion of your portfolio. They are the safest bet, long term, for someone who just wants to buy and hold. Thats not to say they need be all. Do a mixture. Diversification is good. As time goes on dont be afraid to add bond ETFs either. This will protect you during downturns as bond prices typically rise under slow growth conditions (and sometimes even under normal conditions, like last year when TLT beat the S&P...)" }, { "docid": "541377", "title": "", "text": "During mergers they try to create efficiencies. Typically these efficiencies happen in the office, one HR person instead of two, less secretaries, less middle managers. The number of maintenance people is normally based off of the number of properties. You likely will be safe in your position, but no one knows for sure." }, { "docid": "118712", "title": "", "text": "In general a stock can open at absolutely any price with no regard for the closing price or after hours price the previous day. The opening price will be determined by the best bid and offer made by people who decide to trade the next day. Some of the those people may have put orders in on a prior day that are still on the books and matter, but there's a lot of time overnight for people to cancel orders and enter new ones, which is especially likely to happen if there was substantive news overnight. As for what you can do in your case, you have the same options that you always had: Sell or hold. If you're selling, you can sell after hours, in the pre-open hours, or during the trading day. There's nothing we can say about this case that's really any different than we can say about any other stock on any other day." } ]

[ { "docid": "486333", "title": "", "text": "\"I worked for a small private tech company that was aquired by a larger publicly traded tech company. My shares were accelerated by 18 months, as written in the contract. I excercised those shares at a very low strike price (under $1) and was given an equal number of shares in the new company. Made about $300,000 pre tax. This was in 2000. (I love how the government considered us \"\"rich\"\" that year, but have never made that amount since!)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "53839", "title": "", "text": "Well first of all, they clawed back 75 mln of those bonuses paid out, so they really didn't get paid that money. Second, not every executive, not even probably more than one executive, was even aware this was happening. There is one who **might** have known it was happening, but the reality is that a lot of these decisions and plans are implemented several levels down from the executive team. The executives do not get involved in day to day shit typically. Third, those bonuses to executives are paid out in stock options. Stock options glean their value from the price of the stock. If the stock price goes down, then their bonuses lose value or become worthless, essentially meaning that they get reductions in pay or no bonus when the stock price goes down. So if the scandal had no affect on the stock price, why wouldn't they get paid their bonuses? The stock is the best indicator of the public's reaction to the entirety of the bank." }, { "docid": "494595", "title": "", "text": "who issued stock typically support it when the stock price go down. No, not many company do that as it is uneconomical for them to do so. Money used up in buying back equity is a wasteful use of a firm's capital, unless it is doing a buyback to return money to shareholders. Does the same thing happen with government bonds? Not necessarily again here. Bond trading is very different from equities trading. There are conditions specified in the offer document on when an issuer can recall bonds(to jack up the price of an oversold bond), even government bonds have them. The actions of the government has a bigger ripple effect as compared to a firm. The government can start buying back bonds to increase it's price, but it will stoke inflation because of the increase in the supply of money in the market, which may or mayn't be desirable. Then again people holding the bond would have to incentivized to sell the bond. Even during the Greek fiasco, the Greek government wasn't buying Greek bonds as it had no capital to buy. Printing more euros wasn't an option as no assets to back the newly printed money and the ECB would have stopped them from being accepted. And generally buying back isn't useful, because they have to return the principal(which might run into billions, invested in long term projects by the government and cannot be liquidated immediately) while servicing a bond is cheaper and investing the proceeds from the bond sale is more useful while being invested in long term projects. The government can just roll over the bonds with a new issue and refrain from returning the capital till it is in a position to do so." }, { "docid": "238682", "title": "", "text": "\"These warrants do not have a fixed expiration date, rather their expiration date is dependant upon the company completing an acquisition. Thirty days after the acquisition is complete the warrants enter their exercise period. The warrants can then be exercised at any time over the next five years. After five years they expire. From the \"\"WARRANT AGREEMENT SOCIAL CAPITAL HEDOSOPHIA HOLDINGS CORP.\"\": A Warrant may be exercised only during the period (the “Exercise Period”) (A) commencing on the later of: (i) the date that is thirty (30) days after the first date on which the Company completes a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination, involving the Company and one or more businesses (a “Business Combination”), and (ii) the date that is twelve (12) months from the date of the closing of the Offering, and (B) terminating at the earliest to occur of (x) 5:00 p.m., New York City time on the date that is five (5) years after the date on which the Company completes its initial Business Combination, (y) the liquidation of the Company in accordance with the Company’s amended and restated memorandum and articles of association, as amended from time to time, if the Company fails to complete a Business Combination, and (z) 5:00 p.m., New York City time on, other than with respect to the Private Placement Warrants, the Redemption Date (as defined below) as provided in Section 6.2 hereof (the “Expiration Date”); provided, however, that the exercise of any Warrant shall be subject to the satisfaction of any applicable conditions, as set forth in subsection 3.3.2 below, with respect to an effective registration statement Source : lawinsder.com\"" }, { "docid": "309984", "title": "", "text": "\"Ordinarily a stock split increases all shareholders' share counts, so that there is no change in anybody's voting power. For example, if you owned 1% of the company before the split, after the split you now have twice as many shares, but there are now twice as many shares outstanding, so you still own 1% of the company. Also, stock splits are not ordinarily \"\"triggered\"\". Usually they happen when the board decides that for one reason or another it's desirable to increase the number of shares in circulation, which causes the price of each share to decrease proportionally. I'm not familiar with the show, and in particular I don't know what the action is that the character being addressed is thinking of taking, but it sounds like they are describing something akin to a \"\"poison pill\"\". In these arrangements, the \"\"pill\"\" is triggered by some predefined condition, say a party acquiring shares in excess of a defined threshold. What typically happens is that shareholders other than the ones who triggered the pill get a chance to buy shares at a substantial discount, thereby diluting the shares of the party that triggered it. Because the other shareholders have to buy their additional shares, albeit at a discount, and because it applies only to certain shares, it's not really a split, but it's close enough that the writers of the show may have felt it was worth using the term that is more familiar to the public.\"" }, { "docid": "440856", "title": "", "text": "No, they are not recession proof. Assume several companies, that issued bonds in the fund, go bankrupt. Those bonds could be worthless, they could miss principle payments, or they could be restructured. All would mean a decline in value. When the economy shrinks (which is what a recession is) how does the Fed respond? By lowering interest rates. This makes current bonds more valuable as presumably they were issued at a higher rate, thus the recession proof prejudice. However, there is nothing to stop a company (in good financial shape) from issuing more bonds to pay the par value on high-interest bonds, thus refinancing their debt. Sort of like how the bank feels when one refinances the mortgage for a lower rate. The thing that troubles me the most is that rates have been low for a long time. What happens if we have a recession now? How does the Fed fix it? I am not sure exactly what the fallout would be, but it could be significant. If you are troubled, you should look for sectors that would be hurt and helped by a Trump-induced recession. Move money away from those that will be hurt. Typically aggressive growth companies are hurt (during recessions), so you may want to move money away from them. Typically established blue chip companies fare okay in a recession so you may want to move money toward them. Move some money to cash, and perhaps some towards bonds. All that being said, I'd keep some money in things like aggressive growth in case you are wrong." }, { "docid": "225026", "title": "", "text": "The analysis is also flawed. Recent downturns in mining stocks are highlighted, but these stocks have been growing strongly for a long time now. Being spooked by a sudden downturn during a long upward swing is not a good investing strategy, but typical of the kind of idea that apparently makes for good news copy." }, { "docid": "194240", "title": "", "text": "\"One idea: If you came up with a model to calculate a \"\"fair price range\"\" for a stock, then any time the market price were to go below the range it could be a buy signal, and above the range it could be a sell signal. There are many ways to do stock valuation using fundamental analysis tools and ratios: dividend discount model, PEG, etc. See Wikipedia - Stock valuation. And while many of the inputs to such a \"\"fair price range\"\" calculation might only change once per quarter, market prices and peer/sector statistics move more frequently or at different times and could generate signals to buy/sell the stock even if its own inputs to the calculation remain static over the period. For multinationals that have a lot of assets and income denominated in other currencies, foreign exchange rates provide another set of interesting inputs. I also think it's important to recognize that with fundamental analysis, there will be extended periods when there are no buy signals for a stock, because the stocks of many popular, profitable companies never go \"\"on sale\"\", except perhaps during a panic. Moreover, during a bull market and especially during a bubble, there may be very few stocks worth buying. Fundamental analysis is designed to prevent one from overpaying for a stock, so even if there is interesting volume and price movement for the stock, there should still be no signal if that action happens well beyond the stock's fair price. (Otherwise, it isn't fundamental analysis — it's technical analysis.) Whereas technical analysis can, by definition, generate far more signals because it largely ignores the fundamentals, which can make even an overvalued stock's movement interesting enough to generate signals.\"" }, { "docid": "280111", "title": "", "text": "\"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \"\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\"\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\"" }, { "docid": "370304", "title": "", "text": "I've never seen a dividend, split or other corporate action during the day, but I have seen trade suspended a few times when something big happened. The market opening price is not in general the same as the close of the previous day. It can gap up or down and does frequently. I don't know of an api to find out if the dividend was cash or stock, but stock dividends are a lot less common." }, { "docid": "550164", "title": "", "text": "Yes and no. Courts do understand the idea of tyranny of the majority. Specifically, actions that hurt the company for personal gain is still theft against the minority shareholders. It's common misconception that this fiduciary duty means that a CEO's job is to raise the price of their stock. The truth is, stock price is a number that has an extremely tenuous relation to actual company health. So, it's entirely possible for a shareholder lawsuit to happen. It's just typically cheaper and less hassle to sell the stocks for a loss and get out while they can." }, { "docid": "70127", "title": "", "text": "I just started in ER a month ago - I think part of it is being in the right place at the right time because the industry is smaller than IB (less positions, less openings). I came from an accounting background and during the interview process I really sold how much I enjoyed investing personally (knew the fundamentals, had decent stock picks/pitches), which happened to be what the hiring managers were looking for. Hope this helps and happy to answer any other questions you might have!" }, { "docid": "145864", "title": "", "text": "\"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \"\"buy out\"\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \"\"buy you out\"\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \"\"I'm on track for $2M this year\"\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\"" }, { "docid": "295786", "title": "", "text": "\"My prediction: They are purposefully suppressing the price. Chinese crypto-exchanges will be temporarily closed at the end of this month. The Communist party leaders and PBoC insiders will have access to cheap bitcoin. After they are sufficiently happy with their bitcoin acquisition, they release a new statement that says exchanges can re-open. The supply has been significantly reduced because of insiders attaining bitcoin behind the scenes during the \"\"shut down\"\". Because of the low supply, the price skyrockets to $10k. They all make significant sums of money. So do you want to be on the sidelines during this, or do you want to join in on the fun? I know what I'll be doing :)\"" }, { "docid": "466883", "title": "", "text": "\"Note: the answer below is speculative and not based on any first-hand knowledge of pump-and-dump schemes. The explanation with spamming doesn't really makes sense for me. Often you see a stock jump 30% or more in a single day at a particular moment in time. Unlikely that random people read their emails at that time and decide to buy. What I think happens is the pumper does a somewhat risky thing: starts buying a lot of shares of a stock that has declined a lot and had low volumes during the previous days. As the price starts to increase other people start to notice the jump and join the buying spree (also don't forget that some probably use buy-stop orders which are triggered when the price reaches a particular level). Also there should be some automatic trading involved (maybe HFT firms do pump-and-dumps) as you have to trade a big volume in a relatively short time span. I think it is unlikely to be done by human operators. Another explanation would be that there is a group of pumpers (to spread the risk so to speak). Update: As I think more of it, it is not necessary to buy \"\"a lot of shares\"\". You could buy some shares, sell them to another pumper and buy from them again at a higher price in several iterations. I think this could also work if you do it fast enough. These scheme makes sense only you previously bought many shares at the low price, possibly during several weeks. Once the price is pumped high enough you can start selling the shares you previously bought (in the days preceding the pump).\"" }, { "docid": "554015", "title": "", "text": "What account you put it in depends on why you have those different accounts. First, if you have them due to regulatory requirements, then you of course must follow said regulations. I doubt that's the case here. Otherwise, you might be splitting based on how they trade (ETFs trade as stocks) or you could be splitting based on how you build a portfolio out of them. When you build a non-speculative stock portfolio, you typically want to limit your holdings in a single stock to a fairly small portion of your portfolio (say, 3%) to limit your exposure to bad stuff happening to a single company. That doesn't apply nearly a much to mutual funds, especially index funds. ETFs are much more like mutual funds here. You can also, of course, create an ETF account and put them there. You also say you have a market index account, what is that used for?" }, { "docid": "418336", "title": "", "text": "Not sure if I follow your question completely. Re: What if some fraud takes place that's too big even for it to fund? SIPC does not fund anything. What it does is takes over the troubled brokerage firm, books / assets and returns the money faster. Refer to SIPC - What SIPC Covers... What it Does Not and more specifically SIPC - Why We Are Not the FDIC. SIPC is free for ordinary investors. To get the same from elsewhere one has to pay the premium. Edit: The event we are saying is a large brokrage firm, takes all of the Margin Money from Customer Accounts and loses it and also sell off all the stocks actually shown as being held in customer account ... that would be to big. While its not clear as to what exactly will happens, my guess is that the limits per customers will go down as initial payments. Subsequent payments will only be done after recover of funds from the bankrupt firm. What normally happens when a brokrage firm goes down is some of the money from customers account is diverted ... stocks are typically safe and not diverted. Hence the way SIPC works is that it will give the money back to customer faster to individuals. In absence of SIPC individual investors would have had to fight for themselves." }, { "docid": "534370", "title": "", "text": "In the United States, when key people in a company buy or sell shares there are reporting requirements. The definition of key people includes people like the CEO, and large shareholders. There are also rules that can lock out their ability to buy and sell shares during periods where their insider knowledge would give them an advantage. These reporting rules are to level the playing field regarding news that will impact the stock price. These rules are different than the reporting rules that the IRS has to be able to tax capital gains. These are also separate than the registration rules for the shares so that you get all the benefits of owning the stock (dividends, voting at the annual meeting, voting on a merger or acquisition)." }, { "docid": "444369", "title": "", "text": "An issue with the initial plan was that the house was gifted to you. Therefore you owned it. Now two years later you wanted to get a mortgage. The IRS would look at it as a home equity debt not a home Acquisition debt, and the interest on the first $100,000 of home equity dept is deductible. This is from IRS pub 936 Mortgage treated as used to buy, build, or improve home. A mortgage secured by a qualified home may be treated as home acquisition debt, even if you do not actually use the proceeds to buy, build, or substantially improve the home. This applies in the following situations. You buy your home within 90 days before or after the date you take out the mortgage. The home acquisition debt is limited to the home's cost, plus the cost of any substantial improvements within the limit described below in (2) or (3). (See Example 1 later.) You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage before the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within 24 months before the date of the mortgage. You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage within 90 days after the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within the period beginning 24 months before the work is completed and ending on the date of the mortgage. (See Example 2 later.) Example 1. You bought your main home on June 3 for $175,000. You paid for the home with cash you got from the sale of your old home. On July 15, you took out a mortgage of $150,000 secured by your main home. You used the $150,000 to invest in stocks. You can treat the mortgage as taken out to buy your home because you bought the home within 90 days before you took out the mortgage. The entire mortgage qualifies as home acquisition debt because it was not more than the home's cost. At two years you would be way outside the 90 day limit. The pub also gives example on how calculate the amount of interest you can deduct." }, { "docid": "534755", "title": "", "text": "There is a strategy called merger-arbitrage where you buy the stock of the acquired company when it sells for less than the final acquisition price. Usually the price will rise to about the acquisition price fairly rapidly after the merge is announced, so you have to move fast. The danger is that the merger gets called off (regulatory reasons, the acquired company board votes no) and you get left holding shares bought at a price higher than the price after the merger collapses. This is kind of an advanced strategy and a tough one to back test since each M&A deal is unique." } ]

[ { "docid": "494655", "title": "", "text": "\"Holding pure cash is a problem for 401K companies because they would then have follow banking rules because they would be holding your cash on their balance sheets. They don't want to be in that business. Instead, they should offer at least one option as a cash equivalent - a money market fund. This way the money is held by the fund, not by 401K administrator. Money Market funds invest in ultra-short term paper, such as overnight loans between banks and other debt instruments that mature in a matter of days. So it is all extremely liquid, as close to \"\"Money\"\" as you can get without actually being money. It is extremely rare for a money market fund to lose value, or \"\"break the buck.\"\" During the crisis of 2008, only one or two funds broke the buck, and it didn't last long. They had gotten greedy and their short term investments were a little more aggressive as they were trying to get extra returns. In short, your money is safe in a money market fund, and your 401K plan should offer one as the \"\"cash\"\" option, or at least it should offer a short-term bond fund. If you feel strongly that your money should be in actual cash, you can always stop contributing to the 401K and put the money in the bank. This is not a good idea though. Unless you're close to retirement, you'll be much better off investing in a well diversified portfolio, even through the ups and downs of the market.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "117845", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "583916", "title": "", "text": "There are a few considerations: Purely Financial: If you think you can make more than 6% (adjusted downward for the tax benefits of home interest deductions) on that $150K then no. Otherwise yes. Update: A good point was made in another answer, if the 401K is not a ROTH, the tax consequences of withdrawing a lump sum like that will probably tip the balance in most situations towards not paying off the house. Risk: Paying off a mortgage reduces your liquidity. That is, it is much harder to pull your money out of a house note than to sell off some stocks/funds/cds. Put simply, if you run into trouble and need a lot of money quickly would you rather have a paid off house or $150K in the bank/near-cash investments?" }, { "docid": "51615", "title": "", "text": "The Financial Services Compensation Scheme says: Investments FSCS provides protection if an authorised investment firm is unable to pay claims against it. For example: for loss arising from bad investment advice, poor investment management or misrepresentation; when an authorised investment firm goes out of business and cannot return investments or money. Investments covered include: stocks and shares; unit trusts; futures and options; personal pension plans and long-term investments such as mortgage endowments. An index-tracking fund provided by an authorised investment firm would seem to qualify in the cases where: The critical points here then are: I can't find anything easily to hand about FSCS on Blackrock's website, so I would imagine that you'd need to consult the documentation on your investment product to be sure." }, { "docid": "598484", "title": "", "text": "\"I hate to be the guy that says this but if you are indeed competing in the CFAI Research Challenge it is probably important. Remember you cannot use CFA as a noun (CFA's) you can only use it as an adjective ie a CFA charterholder. As far as you question, what was provided below is pretty much all you need. Security Analysis, anything from the NYU professor and Greenwald stuff (although Greenwald, like someone already mentioned, is balance sheet focused) will get you where you need to go. I am not sure what you mean by \"\"exotic valuation\"\" methods. As far as I know, the three most accepted and used valuation models by practitioners are the DCF model, the multiple model and the residual income model. DCF uses short term cash flows and a terminal value discounted to today at some discount rate. The multiple model puts some multiple on earnings, book value, cash flow to arrive at a fair value. The residual model is the opposite of the DCF. One starts with the assets book value, then accrues all income generated in excess of WACC from all future periods. Find some CFAI Level 2 books on equity and bond valuation. They pretty much cover it all. And for a closing note, to perform well in investing and valuing companies it is not about what valuation model you use. Focus on WHY an asset should be worth what you think it is worth, not HOW you get to some valuation of that asset. Just my two cents.\"" }, { "docid": "485760", "title": "", "text": "\"Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several \"\"pre-crashes\"\" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative.\"" }, { "docid": "430931", "title": "", "text": "Specifically on the subject of maxing out your 401k, there are several downsides: The employer match usually only applies to the first 6%. Some employers offer no match at all. You listed the match as a pro, but I think it should be pointed out that you can usually get this benefit without maxing out your plan. The investment options are limited. Usually there is at least one fund available from all the common investment classes, but these may not be your preferred funds if you were able to choose for yourself. Fees can be very high. If you are working for a small to medium size company, the fees for each fund will often be higher than for the same funds in a plan offered by a large company. Fees are usually related to the dollar amount of assets under management. Each person has a different tax situation, so if you are single and making 6 figures, you might still be in the 25% bracket even after maxing out your 401k, but the same person filing jointly with a spouse that makes less could get down to the 15% bracket with a smaller contribution. I meet my retirement savings goals without maxing out the 401k. As long as the amount is above the employer match amount, my second priority is to funnel as much money as possible in to my IRA (because I get lower fees and better investment options from Vanguard)." }, { "docid": "77088", "title": "", "text": "Well, to get money, you need to leverage your assets. So your options basically are: - Asset: Cash. Well, I figure if you had, you wouldn't have asked how to get more of it, but its always worth mentioning. Don't forget about cash that can be in tricky places to tap, like 401ks, IRAs, investment accounts, etc. There is usually some way to get at the cash, but it may not be worth it and you could end up sacrificing long term financial stability if you do. - Asset: Job Skills and Initiative. Get a job and and earn the cash. $2k is not a ton, and if you live frugally you should be able to save it. There are tons of websites dedicated to living frugally and earning extra cash on the side. My personal favorite is r/beermoney. - Asset: Good Credit. Borrow the money from a traditional bank. Signature loans go up to $35k at most banks, just ask what it would take to qualify. You could also get a credit card for that amount, and use it to start up the business. - Asset. Bad Credit. If you've got bad credit, you can still take out a loan from a place like Prosper or Lending Club or Sofi (these places are handy if you have good credit, too). Your rates will be much higher, but they will still lend to you. - Asset: Property. If you own stuff, you can sell it and get cash. Clean out your attic (or ask relatives if you can have the stuff in theirs!) and sell it. If you own fancy stuff, you can borrow against it (home, car, boat, etc.). - Asset: Your Charm and Winning Smile. If you have a good, solid business plan (written down and professional looking), ask around and see if you can find an investor. It could be friends or family, but it could also be someone who is looking to invest. Be professional, and be sure to draw up the appropriate business docs if you do a partnership or take a private loan. - Asset: Your Government. If you live in the US, there are federal programs that offer Small Business Loans. Check out sba.gov for more info. You will need a business plan and will have to meet the criteria of the loan or grant. Not sure if your Ecommerce business will meet the criteria, as the intent of these types of programs are to spur the economy by allowing small business owners to hire workers. But its worth checking out." }, { "docid": "477175", "title": "", "text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options." }, { "docid": "122491", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"" }, { "docid": "310433", "title": "", "text": "I am a bit unsure of why the interest rate is relevant. Are you intending on borrowing the money to go to school? If you cannot pay cash, then it is very likely a bad idea. Many people are overcome by events when seeking higher education and such a loan on a such a salary could devastate you financially. So I find the cost of the program as a total of 76.6K counting a loss in salary during the program and the first year grant. That is a lot of money, do you intend to borrow that much? Especially when you consider that your salary, after you graduate, will be about equal to where you are now. For that reason I am leaning toward a no, even if you had the cash in hand to do so. There is nothing to say that you will enjoy teaching. Furthermore teaching in low income school is more challenging. All that said, is there a way you can raise your income without going back to school? Washington state can be a very expensive place to live and is one of the reason why I left. I am a WWU alumni (Go Vikings!). Could you cash flow a part time program instead? I would give this a sound no, YMMV." }, { "docid": "483268", "title": "", "text": "The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company." }, { "docid": "588029", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's pretend that the author of that article is not selling anything and is trying to help you succeed in life. I have nothing against sales, but that author is throwing out a lot of nonsense to sell his stuff and is creating a state of urgency so that people adopt this mindset. It's clever and it obviously works. From a pure time perspective, most people won't make enough money to run their own business and be as profitable as if they worked for a company. This is a reality that few want to acknowledge. If you invested in yourself and your career with the same discipline and urgency as an entrepreneur, most people would be better off at a company when you consider the benefits and the fact that employees have a full 7.5% of social security paid by their employer (entrepreneurs see the full 15% while employees don't). Why do I start here, because this author isn't telling you that the more people take his advice, the more their earnings will regress to the mean or below. In fact, most of my entrepreneur friends have to go back to work when their reality fails after they burn through their savings. 401ks are not a perfect system, but there are more 401k millionaires now than ever before this, and people who give the author's advice are always looking to avoid doing what they need to do - save for retirement. Most people I know sadly realize this in their 50s, when it's too late, and start trying to \"\"catch up.\"\" I don't blame the author for this, as he knows his article will appeal to younger people who don't have the wisdom to see that his advice hasn't been great for most. The reality is that for most people 401ks will provide tax advantaged savings that you can use when you're older; taxes will eat at your earnings, so these accounts really help. Finally, look at the article again especially the part you quote. He says inflation will carve out what you save, yet inflation is less than 2%. Where is he getting this from? In the past decade, we've seen numerous deflationary spirals and the market overall has come back from the fall in 2009. Again, this isn't \"\"good enough\"\" for this author, so buy his stuff to learn how to succeed! There have been numerous decades (50s,70s) that were much worse for investors than this past one.\"" }, { "docid": "291578", "title": "", "text": "\"Rolling an old 401k into a new 401k is generally only for ease of management. For example, how many bank accounts do you really want? As long as the funds are reasonably allocated I've found it can be a useful \"\"mind game\"\" to leave it separate. Sometimes it's desirable to ignore an account and let it grow, and it is a nice surprise when finally adding all the account balances together. In other words, I keep thinking I've got X (the amount of my biggest or current 401k), which affects/helps my habits and desire to save. When I add them all together I'm shocked to find out I've got Y (the total of all accounts). Personally, I've had big paperwork problems transferring an old 403b (same type process as 401k) even when I had an adviser helping me move it. In the end it was worth moving it, because I'm having the adviser manage it. I'm actually writing this answer specifically because I recently moved a big 401k into a Traditional IRA. A rep from the brokerage, representing my previous employer, kept calling me to find out how they could help (I didn't brush him off). I found that using an IRA provided me with the opportunity to do self-guided investments in funds or even individual stocks, well beyond the limited selection of the old company's 401k. It was useful/interesting to me to invest in low-fee vehicles such as index funds (ie: the Buffett recommendation), and I'll find some stocks as well. Oh and when the old company 401k has certain funds being discontinued, I didn't want to notice the mandated changes years later. So, I'd suggest you consider management and flexibility of the 401k or equivalent, and any of your special personal circumstances/goals. If you end up with a few retirement accounts, I suggest you use an account aggregating website to see or follow your net worth. I know many who, based on various concerns and their portfolio, find an acceptable website to use.\"" }, { "docid": "32009", "title": "", "text": "\"So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point \"\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund...\"\" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund. The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control. Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested. Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions. Use them to the maximum your employer will match. After that OWN your IRA. Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first. Contribute the calendar maximum. Then get a traditional. The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund.\"" }, { "docid": "384644", "title": "", "text": "Here are three key factors that you do not explicitly state: So while I cannot say exactly why the tax law is the way it is, I can infer that it encourages long-term investments rather than short-term, which would seem to be a good thing for society overall. The fast that capital gains are taxed at all somewhat discourages cashing out investments (although I suspect it's more of a nuisance factor - the cash received is likely more on an incentive that the tax is a disincentive)." }, { "docid": "557506", "title": "", "text": "\"From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward. Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008. So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse. You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is). If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead. The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as \"\"irrational\"\". Paying off debt feels good. Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well). If that makes them mindless \"\"minions\"\" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)\"" }, { "docid": "434190", "title": "", "text": "The compound interest argument is a good one. While you are young, it is important to save, since time is on your side for compounding of interest. I think the 401K is a good idea, but not for all of your savings. Think about saving a percentage of your income, but put it in a couple places. Your Roth is also a great thing, since you'll be able to remove money without paying tax again. The 401k (tax deferred) is a good idea if your company matches any of it (FREE MONEY!), and because it lowers your taxable income now, and it's taken out of your check before you see it, so you don't miss it. It's still important to save other money that you can have for ready cash (unexpected dead car, for example, or medical bills, or what have you.) I find that I don't want to be managing my investments from minute to minute, or doing my own trades (I'd rather do other things), so I have a mix (Roth, 401k, cash savings) of automated contributions for savings, and I think hard before buying new stuff. The point is to save, and if possible, try to save at least 10% of your income." }, { "docid": "291548", "title": "", "text": "Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000. If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares. The price in the market is unimportant. Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense. It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction. It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares. Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased. Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price. Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege. I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense. It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2. The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment." }, { "docid": "511861", "title": "", "text": "http://dailyfinance.com Enter a stock ticker, then click on the Chain link to the left. Then, click on the option tickers to see their charts. EDIT: the site has changed, and there are no more option charts. So why are option charts so tough to find? Options are derivatives of the stock. Option prices are defined by a formula. The inputs are stock pricxe, strike, days to expiration, dividend, risk-free interest rate, and volatility. Volatility is the only thing that cannot be easily looked up. With a Black-Scholes calculator, and some reasonable volatility selections, it's possible to make your own fairly accurate option chart. I don't think it's very enlightening, though. The interesting things are: the stock price movement (as always), and the nature of option pricing behavior in general (understanding how the formula represents crowd behavior)." } ]

[ { "docid": "240562", "title": "", "text": "Your employer decides what options you have in the 401k. You can talk to your HR about that. There are requirements for diversity of various types of investments, money-market funds is being one of them. That is the investment account equivalent of cash. While it is not really cash but rather short term bonds - the term is generally very short and the risk is very limited. You can't earn much there, and you can't lose much there - so for all intents and purposes you can treat is as a cash-equivalent." } ]

[ { "docid": "511861", "title": "", "text": "http://dailyfinance.com Enter a stock ticker, then click on the Chain link to the left. Then, click on the option tickers to see their charts. EDIT: the site has changed, and there are no more option charts. So why are option charts so tough to find? Options are derivatives of the stock. Option prices are defined by a formula. The inputs are stock pricxe, strike, days to expiration, dividend, risk-free interest rate, and volatility. Volatility is the only thing that cannot be easily looked up. With a Black-Scholes calculator, and some reasonable volatility selections, it's possible to make your own fairly accurate option chart. I don't think it's very enlightening, though. The interesting things are: the stock price movement (as always), and the nature of option pricing behavior in general (understanding how the formula represents crowd behavior)." }, { "docid": "341146", "title": "", "text": "While tax deferral is a nice feature, the 401k is not the Holy Grail. I've seen plenty of 401k's where the investment options are horrible: sub-par performance, high fees, limited options. That's great that you've maxed out your Roth IRA. I commend you for that. As long as the investment options in your 401k are good, then I would stick with it." }, { "docid": "137746", "title": "", "text": "Problem with deciding investments in a company is that you have multiple potential options, each with their projected returns, but each also has some hard-to-estimate risks. A further problem is that these opportunities arrive one-by-one, so you usually cannot compare project A vs. project B to decide which one is better. The internal rate of return is a rule-of-thumb like way to make these decisions. The company board may set an IRR target of e.g. 15%, and each executive will compare their projects against that target. They'll execute only the projects that are projected to give a good return, but some of these projects will end up failing. Thus the real average profit will not be equal to IRR. Important thing is that this target number gives ways to compare projects, and also for the board to control the investments. If the company has a good track record of being successful at projects, the board might set an IRR target of 10% and expect to get e.g. 8% return on their investment. However, if the company has a much larger risk of projects failing, they might demand a predicted IRR of 20% to account for the risk. Ultimately if the IRR target is set too high, the company will find no projects it considers profitable to invest in. In practice if this happens, the company owners are better off taking out the cash as dividends and investing it elsewhere." }, { "docid": "384644", "title": "", "text": "Here are three key factors that you do not explicitly state: So while I cannot say exactly why the tax law is the way it is, I can infer that it encourages long-term investments rather than short-term, which would seem to be a good thing for society overall. The fast that capital gains are taxed at all somewhat discourages cashing out investments (although I suspect it's more of a nuisance factor - the cash received is likely more on an incentive that the tax is a disincentive)." }, { "docid": "221117", "title": "", "text": "I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature." }, { "docid": "586572", "title": "", "text": "\"Are “auto income generators” scams or alternative investment channels? I wouldn't go so far as to say that these are scams so much as grossly exaggerated marketing claims. If it sounds too good to be true then it usually is. Auto auto income generator, for example, hosts a site that you can use to produce revenue from ads. In order to get enough traffic to generate the amount of income they promise you have to put in a lot of work, hardly making it \"\"automatic.\"\" I can't find anything on auto bit coin builder, however. They promise to pay out an outrageously high fixed-return with vague descriptions about \"\"investments.\"\" This is purely speculation since there is not very much information about this small site, but it may be a \"\"pyramid\"\" or \"\"Ponzi\"\" scheme. They promise a return higher than traditional investments, offer extra incentives for referrals, and offer a list of excuses for why funds may be pending even though the transfer happens \"\"INSTANTLY\"\" on their end. The fact that they only deal in crpytocurrency may also be an attempt to remain anonymous.\"" }, { "docid": "64459", "title": "", "text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match." }, { "docid": "410166", "title": "", "text": "\"For one thing fund managers, even fund management companies, own less money than their clients put together. On the whole they simply cannot underwrite 50% of the potential losses of the funds they manage, and an offer to do so would be completely unsecured. Warren Buffet owns about 1/3 of Berkshire Hathaway, so I suppose maybe he could do it if he wanted to, and I won't guess why he prefers his own business model (investing in the fund he manages, or used to manage) over the one you propose for him (keeping his money in something so secure he could use it to cover arbitrary losses on B-H). Buffett and his investors have always felt that he has sufficient incentive to see B-H do well, and it's not clear that your scheme would provide him any useful further incentive. You say that the details are immaterial. Supposing instead of 50% it was 0.0001%, one part in a million. Then it would be completely plausible for a fund manager to offer this: \"\"invest 50 million, lose it all, and I'll buy dinner to apologise\"\". But would you be as attracted to it as you would be to 50%? Then the details are material. Actually a fund manager could do it by taking your money, putting 50% into the fund and 50% into a cash account. If you make money on the fund, you only make half as much as if you'd been fully invested, so half your profit has been \"\"taken\"\" when you get back the fund value + cash. If you lose money on the fund, pay you back 50% of your losses using the cash. Worst case scenario[*], the fund is completely wiped out but you still get back 50% of your initial investment. The combined fund+cash investment vehicle has covered exactly half your losses and it subtracts exactly half your profit. The manager has offered the terms you asked for (-50% leverage) but still doesn't have skin the game. Your proposed terms do not provide the incentive you expect. Why don't fund managers offer this? Because with a few exceptions 50% is an absurd amount for an investment fund to keep in cash, and nobody would buy it. If you want to use cash for that level of inverse leverage you call the bank, open an account, and keep the interest for yourself. You don't expect your managed fund to do it. Furthermore, supposing the manager did invest 100% of your subscription in the fund and cover the risk with their own capital, that means the only place they actually make any profit is the return on a risk that they take with their capital on the fund's wins/losses. You've given them no incentive to invest your money as well as their own: they might as well just put their capital in the fund and let you keep your money. They're better off without you since there's less paperwork, and they can invest whatever they like instead of carefully matching whatever money you send them. If you think they can make better picks than you, and you want them to do so on your behalf, then you need to pay them for the privilege. Riding their coattails for free is not a service they have any reason to offer you. It turns out that you cannot force someone to expose themselves to a particular risk other than by agreeing that they will expose themselves to that risk and then closely monitoring their investment portfolio. Otherwise they can find ways to insure/hedge the risk they're required to take on. If it's on their books but cancelled by something else then they aren't really exposed. So to provide incentive what we normally want is what Buffett does, which is for the fund manager to be invested in the fund to keep them keen, and to draw a salary in return for letting you in[**]. Their investment cannot precisely match yours because the fund manager's capital doesn't precisely match your capital. It doesn't cover your losses because it's in the same fund, so if your money vanishes the fund manager loses too and has nothing to cover you with. But it does provide the incentive. [*] All right, I admit it, worst case scenario there's a total banking collapse, end of civilization as we know it, and the cash account defaults. But then even in your proposed scheme it's possible that whatever assets the fund manager was using as security could fail to materialise. [**] So why, you might ask, do individual fund managers get bonuses in return for meeting fixed targets instead of only being part-paid in shares in their own fund whose value they can then maximise? I honestly don't know, but I suspect \"\"lots of reasons\"\". Probably the psychology of rewarding them for performance in a way that compares with other executive posts or professions they might take up instead of fund management. Probably the benefit to the fund itself, which wants to attract more clients, of beating certain benchmarks. Probably other things including, frankly, human error in setting their compensation packages.\"" }, { "docid": "444107", "title": "", "text": "\"Technically there could be a true cash fund, but the issue is it would need to have some sort of cost associated with it, which would mean it would have negative yield or would charge a fee. In some cases, this might be preferable to having it invested in \"\"cash equivalents,\"\" which as you note are not cash. It is important to note that there is nothing, even cash or physical precious metals, that is considered zero risk. They all just have different risks associated with them, that may be an issue under certain circumstances. In severe deflation, cash is king, and all non-cash asset classes and debt could go down in value. Under severe inflation, cash can become worthless. One respondent mentioned an alternative of stopping contributing to a 401k and depositing money in a bank, but that is not the same as cash either. In recent decades, people have been led to believe that depositing your money in the bank means you hold that in cash at the bank. That is untrue. They hold your deposit on their books and proceed to invest/loan that money, but those investments can turn sour in an economic and financial downturn. The same financial professionals would then remind you that, while this is true, there is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that will make you whole should the bank go under. Unfortunately, if enough banks went under due to lack of reserves, the FDIC may be unable to make depositors whole for lack of reserves. In fact, they were nearing this during the last financial crisis. The sad thing is that the financial industry is bias against offering what you said, because they make money by using your money. Fractional reserve banking. You are essentially holding IOUs from your bank when you have money on deposit with them. Getting back to the original question; you could do some searching and see if there is an institution that would act as a cash depository for physical cash in your IRA. There are IRA-approved ways of holding physical precious metals, which isn't all too different of a concept from holding physical cash. 401k plans are chosen by your company and often have very limited options available, meaning it'd be unlikely you could ever hold physical cash or physical precious metals in your 401k.\"" }, { "docid": "436930", "title": "", "text": "$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you." }, { "docid": "362532", "title": "", "text": "The catch is in the Premium amount you pay. In a pure term insurance, there is no survival benefit. You get paid only for the event, i.e. when you die during the policy term, the sum assured is paid to your nominee. The money back on the other hand, charges a huge premium, typically 5X more than the pure term, part of it is for the risk cover. The balance is then invested in safe instruments and at the end if you survive you would get that money. Typical calculations would show that if you had yourself invested the difference in premium even in CD's you would get much more money back. The reason this product is available in the market is more of people cannot part with money when they don't get anything back. To these vast majority, it looks like insurance company is taking all their money and doesn't give them back if they survive. Hence to make it seem better to these vast majority, there is money back. Hence people all over the world buy these policy much more than a pure term policy." }, { "docid": "51615", "title": "", "text": "The Financial Services Compensation Scheme says: Investments FSCS provides protection if an authorised investment firm is unable to pay claims against it. For example: for loss arising from bad investment advice, poor investment management or misrepresentation; when an authorised investment firm goes out of business and cannot return investments or money. Investments covered include: stocks and shares; unit trusts; futures and options; personal pension plans and long-term investments such as mortgage endowments. An index-tracking fund provided by an authorised investment firm would seem to qualify in the cases where: The critical points here then are: I can't find anything easily to hand about FSCS on Blackrock's website, so I would imagine that you'd need to consult the documentation on your investment product to be sure." }, { "docid": "184077", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"" }, { "docid": "213976", "title": "", "text": "To me it depends on things like your net worth, debt, and how other assets are invested. Currently you have 25K invested in the company you work for. If you have 100K in student loans, are a renter, and 12K in your 401K, then I would recommend exercising almost all of your options. In that case you have a much to large part of your world wrapped up in your company. If you have 250K in your 401K, own a home and have an emergency fund with no debt then you are fine with letting it ride. You can afford to absorb a loss of 25K without wrecking your net worth. More than likely, you are somewhere in between (just statistics speaking there). So why not exercise some of them now with the purpose of improving your financial situation? Say do a 1/3 now and when they come available. When 401ks were first invented people put almost all of their money in their company stock. They lost just about everything when the company went down in value and were often a victim of layoffs exasperating the issue. This is akin to the same situation. Most financial advisers recommend against putting any 401K money to company stock, or at least limiting the amount." }, { "docid": "379639", "title": "", "text": "\"What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? If you don't know your options, I would suggest reading some material on it that might be a little more extensive than an answer here (for instance, http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/ has some good and free information about a myriad of financial topics). With retirement accounts you can roll it over or leave it in the current account. Things to look at would be costs of the accounts, options you have in each account, and the flexibility of moving it if you need to. Depending on what type of retirement account it is (Roth 401K, Traditional 401K, etc, you may have some advantages with moving it to another type). The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? I have the extra money and it would not be a hardship to do so unless that money can be best used somewhere else? Unless I was making more money in a savings/investing/business opportunity, I would pay off the student loans in a lump sum. The reason is basic opportunity cost (economics) - if a better opportunity isn't on the horizon with your money, kill the interest you're paying because it's money you're losing every month. With the money just sitting in the bank I get a little sick feeling thinking that I can be doing something better with that. Outside of general savings you could look at investing in stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, currencies, lending club loans (vary by state), or something similar. Or you could try to start a business or invest in a start up directly (though, depending on the start up, they may not accept small investors). Otherwise, if you don't have a specific idea at this time, it's best to have money in savings while you ponder where else it would serve you. Keep in mind, having cash on hand, even if it's not earning anything, can bail you out in emergencies or open the door if an opportunity arises. So, you're really not \"\"losing\"\" anything by having it in cash if you're patiently waiting on opportunities.\"" }, { "docid": "444044", "title": "", "text": "It is not necessarily proportional. 401k are all unique per the plan and how they are set up. It is impossible to find any two exactly alike. You should have separate buckets of the money types. Pre tax, after tax, roth, employer contribution,etc... If the plan is good you may have a Source Specific Withdraw option which allows you to take only roth or pretax at your choosing. They should track the growth of each bucket separately. It does indeed appear complicated but just think of it as different buckets of cash store in the same vault. Most people end up rolling over the 401k into an ira when they retire for flexibility to get out from under the plan rules. When you do this you will create a roth ira and a traditional ira. Then you can pick and choose when you want to take what type of money." }, { "docid": "122491", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"" }, { "docid": "297288", "title": "", "text": "\"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a \"\"big elephant to eat\"\" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes. Secondly, it is about cutting expenses. Cable: off. No eating out or vacations. Cut back on cell phone plans, only basic clothing. Gift giving is of the $5 variety and only for those very close to you. Forget lattes, etc. Depending on your income I would cut 401K contributions to zero or only up to the company match (if your household income is above 150K/year). Third, it is about earning more. Ebay, deliver pizzas, cut grass, overtime, whatever. All extra dollars go to credit card balance reduction. At a minimum, you should find an extra $1000/month; however, I would shoot for 2K. If you can find 2K, you will be done with this in 13 months. I know the math doesn't work out for that, but once you get momentum, you find more. How good will it feel to be out from under this oppression next March? I know you can do this without cashing in the annuity or refinancing. Do you believe it?\"" }, { "docid": "550083", "title": "", "text": "\"I would create a \"\"Rollover IRA\"\". These IRAs are designed to take funds from a 401k and allow you to invest them without incurring a cash out penalty nor a tax due. You will have more choices than if you leave it at your old 401k. If you cash out the 401k, you'll have much less to invest ($1500 - penalty - taxes) vs. doing a rollover 401k where you'll still have $1500 to invest. Then, once the money is inside the new Rollover IRA you can invest in whatever you please. If you want to invest in Vanguard funds, I recommend opening the Rollover IRA at Vanguard. Here is Vanguard's information page about rollovers from 401ks: https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/401k-rollovers/401k-403b-to-ira-rollover-benefits When you next change jobs and have another 401k with funds in it, you can roll it into the same Rollover IRA.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "293320", "title": "", "text": "The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity. Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option." } ]

[ { "docid": "552887", "title": "", "text": "My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more." }, { "docid": "583203", "title": "", "text": "You did something that you shouldn't have done; you bought a dividend. Most mutual fund companies have educational materials on their sites that recommend against making new investments in mutual funds in the last two months of the year because most mutual funds distribute their earnings (dividends, capital gains etc) to their shareholders in December, and the share price of the funds goes down in the amount of the per share distribution. These distributions can be taken in cash or can be re-invested in the fund; you most likely chose the latter option (it is often the default choice if you ignored all this because you are a newbie). For those who choose to reinvest, the number of shares in the mutual fund increases, but since the price of the shares has decreased, the net amount remains the same. You own more shares at a lower price than the day before when the price was higher but the total value of your account is the same (ignoring normal market fluctuations in the price of the actual stocks held by the fund. Regardless of whether you take the distributions as cash or re-invest in the fund, that money is taxable income to you (unless the fund is owned inside a 401k or IRA or other tax-deferred investment program). You bought 56 shares at a price of $17.857 per share (net cost $1000). The fund distributed its earnings shortly thereafter and gave you 71.333-56= 15.333 additional shares. The new share price is $14.11. So, the total value of your investment is $1012, but the amount that you have invested in the account is the original $1000 plus the amount of the distribution which is (roughly) $14.11 x 15.333 = $216. Your total investment of $1216 is now worth $1012 only, and so you have actually lost money. Besides, you owe income tax on that $216 dividend that you received. Do you see why the mutual fund companies recommend against making new investments late in the year? If you had waited till after the mutual fund had made its distribution, you could have bought $1000/14.11 = 70.871 shares and wouldn't have owed tax on that distribution that you just bought by making the investment just before the distribution was made. See also my answer to this recent question about investing in mutual funds." }, { "docid": "182305", "title": "", "text": "You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment." }, { "docid": "391896", "title": "", "text": "Your question is very widely scoped, making it difficult to reply to, but I can provide my thoughts on at least the following part of the question: I have a 401k plan with T. Rowe Price, should I use them for other investments too? Using your employer's decision, on which 401k provider they've chosen, as a basis for making your own decision on a broker for investing $100k when you don't even know what kind of investments you want seems relatively unwise to me, even if one of your focuses is simplicity. That is, unless your $100k is tax-advantaged (e.g. an IRA or other 401k) and your drive for simplicity means you'd be happy to add $100k to any of your existing 401k investments. In which case you should look into whether you can roll the $100k over into your employer's 401k program. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume the $100k is NOT tax-advantaged. I assume you're suggesting this idea because of some perceived bundling of the relationship and ease of dealing with one company & website? Yes, they may be able to combine both accounts into a single login, and you may be able to interact with both accounts with the same basic interface, but that's about where the sharing will end. And even those benefits aren't guaranteed. For example, I still have a separate site to manage my money in my employer's 401k @ Fidelity than I do for my brokerage/banking accounts @ Fidelity. The investment options aren't the same for the two types of accounts, so the interface for making and monitoring investments isn't either. And you won't be able to co-mingle funds between the 401k and non-tax-advantaged money anyway, so you'll have two different accounts to deal with even if you have a single provider. Given that you'll have two different accounts, you might as well pick a broker/provider for the $100k that gives you the best investment options, lowest fees, and best UI experience for your chosen type/goal of investments. I would strongly recommend figuring out how you want to invest the $100k before trying to figure out which provider to use as a broker for doing the investment." }, { "docid": "436930", "title": "", "text": "$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you." }, { "docid": "398520", "title": "", "text": "Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such. You have 3 options: 1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k. 2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners. 3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement). My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same. You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement. If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one." }, { "docid": "341146", "title": "", "text": "While tax deferral is a nice feature, the 401k is not the Holy Grail. I've seen plenty of 401k's where the investment options are horrible: sub-par performance, high fees, limited options. That's great that you've maxed out your Roth IRA. I commend you for that. As long as the investment options in your 401k are good, then I would stick with it." }, { "docid": "384644", "title": "", "text": "Here are three key factors that you do not explicitly state: So while I cannot say exactly why the tax law is the way it is, I can infer that it encourages long-term investments rather than short-term, which would seem to be a good thing for society overall. The fast that capital gains are taxed at all somewhat discourages cashing out investments (although I suspect it's more of a nuisance factor - the cash received is likely more on an incentive that the tax is a disincentive)." }, { "docid": "221117", "title": "", "text": "I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature." }, { "docid": "557506", "title": "", "text": "\"From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward. Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008. So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse. You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is). If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead. The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as \"\"irrational\"\". Paying off debt feels good. Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well). If that makes them mindless \"\"minions\"\" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)\"" }, { "docid": "455261", "title": "", "text": "You will want to focus on how much is needed for retirement, and what types of investments within the current 401K offerings will get you there. Also will need to discuss non-401K investments such as an IRA, college savings, savings for a house, and an emergency fund. The 401K should be a part of your overall financial picture, how much you invest in the 401K depends on the options you have (Roth 401K available), how much matching (some a little or a lot), and your family plans. You have a few choices: Your company through the 401K provider may provide this service. They may have limited knowledge in what non-401K funds you should invest in, but should be able to discuss types of investment. Fee only planner. They will be able to discus types of investments, and give you some suggestions. Because they don't work on a commission they will not make the investment for you. You need to be able to make the actual selection of investments, so make sure you get criteria to focus on as part of the package. Commission based planner. Will make money off your investment choices. May steer you towards investments that their company offers or ones that offer them the best commissions in that investment type. If the 401K doesn't use funds that the planner can research you will need to provide a copy of the prospectus provided by the 401K. My suggestion is the fee only planner. They balance the limited focus of the 401K company without limiting themselves to the funds their company sells. Before sitting down with the planner get in writing how they fee structure works. A flat fee or hourly fee planner will be expecting you to do all the investment work. This is what you want. Let the fee only planner help you define your plan. But also reanalyze the plan every few years as your needs change." }, { "docid": "362532", "title": "", "text": "The catch is in the Premium amount you pay. In a pure term insurance, there is no survival benefit. You get paid only for the event, i.e. when you die during the policy term, the sum assured is paid to your nominee. The money back on the other hand, charges a huge premium, typically 5X more than the pure term, part of it is for the risk cover. The balance is then invested in safe instruments and at the end if you survive you would get that money. Typical calculations would show that if you had yourself invested the difference in premium even in CD's you would get much more money back. The reason this product is available in the market is more of people cannot part with money when they don't get anything back. To these vast majority, it looks like insurance company is taking all their money and doesn't give them back if they survive. Hence to make it seem better to these vast majority, there is money back. Hence people all over the world buy these policy much more than a pure term policy." }, { "docid": "222485", "title": "", "text": "You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters." }, { "docid": "583916", "title": "", "text": "There are a few considerations: Purely Financial: If you think you can make more than 6% (adjusted downward for the tax benefits of home interest deductions) on that $150K then no. Otherwise yes. Update: A good point was made in another answer, if the 401K is not a ROTH, the tax consequences of withdrawing a lump sum like that will probably tip the balance in most situations towards not paying off the house. Risk: Paying off a mortgage reduces your liquidity. That is, it is much harder to pull your money out of a house note than to sell off some stocks/funds/cds. Put simply, if you run into trouble and need a lot of money quickly would you rather have a paid off house or $150K in the bank/near-cash investments?" }, { "docid": "310433", "title": "", "text": "I am a bit unsure of why the interest rate is relevant. Are you intending on borrowing the money to go to school? If you cannot pay cash, then it is very likely a bad idea. Many people are overcome by events when seeking higher education and such a loan on a such a salary could devastate you financially. So I find the cost of the program as a total of 76.6K counting a loss in salary during the program and the first year grant. That is a lot of money, do you intend to borrow that much? Especially when you consider that your salary, after you graduate, will be about equal to where you are now. For that reason I am leaning toward a no, even if you had the cash in hand to do so. There is nothing to say that you will enjoy teaching. Furthermore teaching in low income school is more challenging. All that said, is there a way you can raise your income without going back to school? Washington state can be a very expensive place to live and is one of the reason why I left. I am a WWU alumni (Go Vikings!). Could you cash flow a part time program instead? I would give this a sound no, YMMV." }, { "docid": "5180", "title": "", "text": "Your analysis is not comparing apples to apples which is why it looks like investing money in a non-qualified account is better than a 401k (traditional or Roth). For the non-qual you are using post tax dollars (money that has already been taxed). Now on top of that original tax you are also going to pay capital gains tax for any growth plus dividend rates for any dividends it throws off. For the 401k, let's assume for the moment that $10,000 is invested in a traditional and that the marginal tax rate is always 20%. And for growth let's assume 10x. With a traditional your money will grow to $100,000 and then the IRS gets $20,000 as you pull the money out. The result is a net 80,000 for you. For a Roth 401k, it is taxed first so only $8,000 gets invested. This then grows by the same multiplier to $80,000. (Until you consider changing tax rates the Roth and traditional give the same growth of money). Considering the non-qual option, like with the Roth we only have $8,000 to invest. However in this case you will not realize the full 10x growth as you will have to pay taxes on $72,000. These are taxes that the 401ks (and also IRAs) do not pay. There are other reasons to consider non-qual over maxing out your 401k. Liquidity, quality of investments, and fees being some of those. But the capital gains rate vs. ordinary income rate is not one, as the money in the non-qual still has to go through that ordinary income tax first before it is available to even invest." }, { "docid": "361028", "title": "", "text": "I'd like to take a moment to point out: I cannot find a bank that charges customers with a checking account fees for withdrawing from an atm owned by that same bank. It is a cornerstone of most banks now to encourage online and atm banking. You should definitely research the validity of the claim that you're associate cannot withdraw from their own account through their own bank's atm without fees. A second scenario I can think of, is that this person uses a bank that does not operate in your region. Then they cannot find an atm owned by their bank. If this is the case, they should simply go to the bank the check is drawn on, and cash it there. So far I only know of Chase bank charging non-Chase customers to cash a check drawn on a Chase account (this is a crap policy that makes me hate that bank). **disclaimer - I am not familiar with all banks, but a quick Google search of banks that operate in your region should reveal which ones if any charge their customers for use of their atms. you may or may not find the check cashing charge policy without attempting to cash the check." }, { "docid": "273142", "title": "", "text": "\"I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you. Basically you have 3 days to deliver. You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply. If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call. (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline. It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date. It is your \"\"insurance\"\" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want. That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds. Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account. There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online. The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here. Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations\"" }, { "docid": "74041", "title": "", "text": "Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married." } ]

[ { "docid": "104793", "title": "", "text": "This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years." } ]

[ { "docid": "273142", "title": "", "text": "\"I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you. Basically you have 3 days to deliver. You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply. If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call. (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline. It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date. It is your \"\"insurance\"\" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want. That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds. Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account. There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online. The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here. Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations\"" }, { "docid": "308380", "title": "", "text": "It depends how you do it. If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes. The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred. Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it. Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes. You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes. Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA. It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA. Your company should give you the option of a rollover check. This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed. It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria. I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days. I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties. I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation." }, { "docid": "32009", "title": "", "text": "\"So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point \"\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund...\"\" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund. The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control. Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested. Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions. Use them to the maximum your employer will match. After that OWN your IRA. Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first. Contribute the calendar maximum. Then get a traditional. The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund.\"" }, { "docid": "384644", "title": "", "text": "Here are three key factors that you do not explicitly state: So while I cannot say exactly why the tax law is the way it is, I can infer that it encourages long-term investments rather than short-term, which would seem to be a good thing for society overall. The fast that capital gains are taxed at all somewhat discourages cashing out investments (although I suspect it's more of a nuisance factor - the cash received is likely more on an incentive that the tax is a disincentive)." }, { "docid": "5180", "title": "", "text": "Your analysis is not comparing apples to apples which is why it looks like investing money in a non-qualified account is better than a 401k (traditional or Roth). For the non-qual you are using post tax dollars (money that has already been taxed). Now on top of that original tax you are also going to pay capital gains tax for any growth plus dividend rates for any dividends it throws off. For the 401k, let's assume for the moment that $10,000 is invested in a traditional and that the marginal tax rate is always 20%. And for growth let's assume 10x. With a traditional your money will grow to $100,000 and then the IRS gets $20,000 as you pull the money out. The result is a net 80,000 for you. For a Roth 401k, it is taxed first so only $8,000 gets invested. This then grows by the same multiplier to $80,000. (Until you consider changing tax rates the Roth and traditional give the same growth of money). Considering the non-qual option, like with the Roth we only have $8,000 to invest. However in this case you will not realize the full 10x growth as you will have to pay taxes on $72,000. These are taxes that the 401ks (and also IRAs) do not pay. There are other reasons to consider non-qual over maxing out your 401k. Liquidity, quality of investments, and fees being some of those. But the capital gains rate vs. ordinary income rate is not one, as the money in the non-qual still has to go through that ordinary income tax first before it is available to even invest." }, { "docid": "167438", "title": "", "text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest)." }, { "docid": "15841", "title": "", "text": "I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K." }, { "docid": "110114", "title": "", "text": "All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage." }, { "docid": "485760", "title": "", "text": "\"Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several \"\"pre-crashes\"\" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative.\"" }, { "docid": "310433", "title": "", "text": "I am a bit unsure of why the interest rate is relevant. Are you intending on borrowing the money to go to school? If you cannot pay cash, then it is very likely a bad idea. Many people are overcome by events when seeking higher education and such a loan on a such a salary could devastate you financially. So I find the cost of the program as a total of 76.6K counting a loss in salary during the program and the first year grant. That is a lot of money, do you intend to borrow that much? Especially when you consider that your salary, after you graduate, will be about equal to where you are now. For that reason I am leaning toward a no, even if you had the cash in hand to do so. There is nothing to say that you will enjoy teaching. Furthermore teaching in low income school is more challenging. All that said, is there a way you can raise your income without going back to school? Washington state can be a very expensive place to live and is one of the reason why I left. I am a WWU alumni (Go Vikings!). Could you cash flow a part time program instead? I would give this a sound no, YMMV." }, { "docid": "222485", "title": "", "text": "You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters." }, { "docid": "477175", "title": "", "text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options." }, { "docid": "455261", "title": "", "text": "You will want to focus on how much is needed for retirement, and what types of investments within the current 401K offerings will get you there. Also will need to discuss non-401K investments such as an IRA, college savings, savings for a house, and an emergency fund. The 401K should be a part of your overall financial picture, how much you invest in the 401K depends on the options you have (Roth 401K available), how much matching (some a little or a lot), and your family plans. You have a few choices: Your company through the 401K provider may provide this service. They may have limited knowledge in what non-401K funds you should invest in, but should be able to discuss types of investment. Fee only planner. They will be able to discus types of investments, and give you some suggestions. Because they don't work on a commission they will not make the investment for you. You need to be able to make the actual selection of investments, so make sure you get criteria to focus on as part of the package. Commission based planner. Will make money off your investment choices. May steer you towards investments that their company offers or ones that offer them the best commissions in that investment type. If the 401K doesn't use funds that the planner can research you will need to provide a copy of the prospectus provided by the 401K. My suggestion is the fee only planner. They balance the limited focus of the 401K company without limiting themselves to the funds their company sells. Before sitting down with the planner get in writing how they fee structure works. A flat fee or hourly fee planner will be expecting you to do all the investment work. This is what you want. Let the fee only planner help you define your plan. But also reanalyze the plan every few years as your needs change." }, { "docid": "345403", "title": "", "text": "\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"" }, { "docid": "361028", "title": "", "text": "I'd like to take a moment to point out: I cannot find a bank that charges customers with a checking account fees for withdrawing from an atm owned by that same bank. It is a cornerstone of most banks now to encourage online and atm banking. You should definitely research the validity of the claim that you're associate cannot withdraw from their own account through their own bank's atm without fees. A second scenario I can think of, is that this person uses a bank that does not operate in your region. Then they cannot find an atm owned by their bank. If this is the case, they should simply go to the bank the check is drawn on, and cash it there. So far I only know of Chase bank charging non-Chase customers to cash a check drawn on a Chase account (this is a crap policy that makes me hate that bank). **disclaimer - I am not familiar with all banks, but a quick Google search of banks that operate in your region should reveal which ones if any charge their customers for use of their atms. you may or may not find the check cashing charge policy without attempting to cash the check." }, { "docid": "144824", "title": "", "text": "There are not as many options here as you fear. If you have no other investments outside this 401K it is even easier. Outside accounts include IRA, Roth IRA, taxable investments (mutual funds, ETF, individual stocks), Employee stock purchase plans. Amount: make sure you put enough in to get all the company match. I assume that in your case the 9% will do so, but check your documents. The company match will be with pre-tax funds. Roth vs Regular 401K? Most people in their lifetime will need a mix of Roth and Regular retirement accounts. You need to determine if it is better for you to pay the tax on your contributions now or later. Which accounts? If you are going to invest in a target date fund, you can ignore the rest of the options. The target date fund is a mixture of investments that will change over the decades. Calculate which one fits your expected retirement date and go with it. If you want to be able to control the mix, then you will need to pick several funds. The selection depends on what non-401K investments you have. Now here is what I considered the best advice. Decide Roth or regular, and just put the money into the most appropriate target date fund with the Roth/regular split you want. Then after the money starts flowing into your account, research the funds involved, the fees for those funds, and how you want to invest. Then move the money into the funds you want. Don't waste another day deciding how to invest. Just get started. The best part of a 401K, besides the match, is that you can move money between funds without worrying about taxes. If you realize that you want to put extra emphasis on the foreign stocks, or Mid-cap; just move the funds and redirect future contributions." }, { "docid": "410166", "title": "", "text": "\"For one thing fund managers, even fund management companies, own less money than their clients put together. On the whole they simply cannot underwrite 50% of the potential losses of the funds they manage, and an offer to do so would be completely unsecured. Warren Buffet owns about 1/3 of Berkshire Hathaway, so I suppose maybe he could do it if he wanted to, and I won't guess why he prefers his own business model (investing in the fund he manages, or used to manage) over the one you propose for him (keeping his money in something so secure he could use it to cover arbitrary losses on B-H). Buffett and his investors have always felt that he has sufficient incentive to see B-H do well, and it's not clear that your scheme would provide him any useful further incentive. You say that the details are immaterial. Supposing instead of 50% it was 0.0001%, one part in a million. Then it would be completely plausible for a fund manager to offer this: \"\"invest 50 million, lose it all, and I'll buy dinner to apologise\"\". But would you be as attracted to it as you would be to 50%? Then the details are material. Actually a fund manager could do it by taking your money, putting 50% into the fund and 50% into a cash account. If you make money on the fund, you only make half as much as if you'd been fully invested, so half your profit has been \"\"taken\"\" when you get back the fund value + cash. If you lose money on the fund, pay you back 50% of your losses using the cash. Worst case scenario[*], the fund is completely wiped out but you still get back 50% of your initial investment. The combined fund+cash investment vehicle has covered exactly half your losses and it subtracts exactly half your profit. The manager has offered the terms you asked for (-50% leverage) but still doesn't have skin the game. Your proposed terms do not provide the incentive you expect. Why don't fund managers offer this? Because with a few exceptions 50% is an absurd amount for an investment fund to keep in cash, and nobody would buy it. If you want to use cash for that level of inverse leverage you call the bank, open an account, and keep the interest for yourself. You don't expect your managed fund to do it. Furthermore, supposing the manager did invest 100% of your subscription in the fund and cover the risk with their own capital, that means the only place they actually make any profit is the return on a risk that they take with their capital on the fund's wins/losses. You've given them no incentive to invest your money as well as their own: they might as well just put their capital in the fund and let you keep your money. They're better off without you since there's less paperwork, and they can invest whatever they like instead of carefully matching whatever money you send them. If you think they can make better picks than you, and you want them to do so on your behalf, then you need to pay them for the privilege. Riding their coattails for free is not a service they have any reason to offer you. It turns out that you cannot force someone to expose themselves to a particular risk other than by agreeing that they will expose themselves to that risk and then closely monitoring their investment portfolio. Otherwise they can find ways to insure/hedge the risk they're required to take on. If it's on their books but cancelled by something else then they aren't really exposed. So to provide incentive what we normally want is what Buffett does, which is for the fund manager to be invested in the fund to keep them keen, and to draw a salary in return for letting you in[**]. Their investment cannot precisely match yours because the fund manager's capital doesn't precisely match your capital. It doesn't cover your losses because it's in the same fund, so if your money vanishes the fund manager loses too and has nothing to cover you with. But it does provide the incentive. [*] All right, I admit it, worst case scenario there's a total banking collapse, end of civilization as we know it, and the cash account defaults. But then even in your proposed scheme it's possible that whatever assets the fund manager was using as security could fail to materialise. [**] So why, you might ask, do individual fund managers get bonuses in return for meeting fixed targets instead of only being part-paid in shares in their own fund whose value they can then maximise? I honestly don't know, but I suspect \"\"lots of reasons\"\". Probably the psychology of rewarding them for performance in a way that compares with other executive posts or professions they might take up instead of fund management. Probably the benefit to the fund itself, which wants to attract more clients, of beating certain benchmarks. Probably other things including, frankly, human error in setting their compensation packages.\"" }, { "docid": "552887", "title": "", "text": "My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more." }, { "docid": "235935", "title": "", "text": "For various reasons, if you can defer tax payment, it's good for you [when you can give uncle sam $x tomorrow, why give it today?]. Some reasons are, you may plan to return back to your country after x years and then you can pay tax at a lower bracket [e.g. convert 401k to Rollover-IRA then do Roth-conversion and pay lower tax bracket]. Paying now versus later is purely based on your anticipated future tax bracket. [if future bracket is same.. say 25% today and after say 20 years, 25%.. there is absolutely no difference between today payment or future payment of tax -- you can mathematically prove the returns are the same for Roth-IRA (or Roth-401k) versus IRA (or 401k)]. Having a bigger balance (in case of 401k compared to roth-401k) can also give you a sense of more security -- since there are provisions for hardship withdrawal (tax may be due)" } ]

[ { "docid": "437427", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "184077", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"" }, { "docid": "361028", "title": "", "text": "I'd like to take a moment to point out: I cannot find a bank that charges customers with a checking account fees for withdrawing from an atm owned by that same bank. It is a cornerstone of most banks now to encourage online and atm banking. You should definitely research the validity of the claim that you're associate cannot withdraw from their own account through their own bank's atm without fees. A second scenario I can think of, is that this person uses a bank that does not operate in your region. Then they cannot find an atm owned by their bank. If this is the case, they should simply go to the bank the check is drawn on, and cash it there. So far I only know of Chase bank charging non-Chase customers to cash a check drawn on a Chase account (this is a crap policy that makes me hate that bank). **disclaimer - I am not familiar with all banks, but a quick Google search of banks that operate in your region should reveal which ones if any charge their customers for use of their atms. you may or may not find the check cashing charge policy without attempting to cash the check." }, { "docid": "32009", "title": "", "text": "\"So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point \"\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund...\"\" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund. The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control. Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested. Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions. Use them to the maximum your employer will match. After that OWN your IRA. Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first. Contribute the calendar maximum. Then get a traditional. The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund.\"" }, { "docid": "586572", "title": "", "text": "\"Are “auto income generators” scams or alternative investment channels? I wouldn't go so far as to say that these are scams so much as grossly exaggerated marketing claims. If it sounds too good to be true then it usually is. Auto auto income generator, for example, hosts a site that you can use to produce revenue from ads. In order to get enough traffic to generate the amount of income they promise you have to put in a lot of work, hardly making it \"\"automatic.\"\" I can't find anything on auto bit coin builder, however. They promise to pay out an outrageously high fixed-return with vague descriptions about \"\"investments.\"\" This is purely speculation since there is not very much information about this small site, but it may be a \"\"pyramid\"\" or \"\"Ponzi\"\" scheme. They promise a return higher than traditional investments, offer extra incentives for referrals, and offer a list of excuses for why funds may be pending even though the transfer happens \"\"INSTANTLY\"\" on their end. The fact that they only deal in crpytocurrency may also be an attempt to remain anonymous.\"" }, { "docid": "308380", "title": "", "text": "It depends how you do it. If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes. The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred. Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it. Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes. You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes. Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA. It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA. Your company should give you the option of a rollover check. This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed. It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria. I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days. I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties. I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation." }, { "docid": "444044", "title": "", "text": "It is not necessarily proportional. 401k are all unique per the plan and how they are set up. It is impossible to find any two exactly alike. You should have separate buckets of the money types. Pre tax, after tax, roth, employer contribution,etc... If the plan is good you may have a Source Specific Withdraw option which allows you to take only roth or pretax at your choosing. They should track the growth of each bucket separately. It does indeed appear complicated but just think of it as different buckets of cash store in the same vault. Most people end up rolling over the 401k into an ira when they retire for flexibility to get out from under the plan rules. When you do this you will create a roth ira and a traditional ira. Then you can pick and choose when you want to take what type of money." }, { "docid": "235935", "title": "", "text": "For various reasons, if you can defer tax payment, it's good for you [when you can give uncle sam $x tomorrow, why give it today?]. Some reasons are, you may plan to return back to your country after x years and then you can pay tax at a lower bracket [e.g. convert 401k to Rollover-IRA then do Roth-conversion and pay lower tax bracket]. Paying now versus later is purely based on your anticipated future tax bracket. [if future bracket is same.. say 25% today and after say 20 years, 25%.. there is absolutely no difference between today payment or future payment of tax -- you can mathematically prove the returns are the same for Roth-IRA (or Roth-401k) versus IRA (or 401k)]. Having a bigger balance (in case of 401k compared to roth-401k) can also give you a sense of more security -- since there are provisions for hardship withdrawal (tax may be due)" }, { "docid": "168890", "title": "", "text": "Companies usually have a minimum account balance required to keep a 401k for former employees. You will have to check whether $10k is sufficient to keep your funds in your former employer's 401k. If you are below their threshold, you will have to move your money. One option is to rollover into the new employer's 401k. You can rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA account that is independent of your employer. A traditional IRA has the same tax benefits as a 401k; it grows tax-free until you withdraw money from the account. Companies that offer IRAs include Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA. Many companies have significant overhead costs in the their 401k management. It may be better for you to rollover your money into an IRA to save on these costs. I am not knowledgeable about loaning from retirement accounts, so I cannot help with that." }, { "docid": "477552", "title": "", "text": "\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \"\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\"\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "485760", "title": "", "text": "\"Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several \"\"pre-crashes\"\" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative.\"" }, { "docid": "410166", "title": "", "text": "\"For one thing fund managers, even fund management companies, own less money than their clients put together. On the whole they simply cannot underwrite 50% of the potential losses of the funds they manage, and an offer to do so would be completely unsecured. Warren Buffet owns about 1/3 of Berkshire Hathaway, so I suppose maybe he could do it if he wanted to, and I won't guess why he prefers his own business model (investing in the fund he manages, or used to manage) over the one you propose for him (keeping his money in something so secure he could use it to cover arbitrary losses on B-H). Buffett and his investors have always felt that he has sufficient incentive to see B-H do well, and it's not clear that your scheme would provide him any useful further incentive. You say that the details are immaterial. Supposing instead of 50% it was 0.0001%, one part in a million. Then it would be completely plausible for a fund manager to offer this: \"\"invest 50 million, lose it all, and I'll buy dinner to apologise\"\". But would you be as attracted to it as you would be to 50%? Then the details are material. Actually a fund manager could do it by taking your money, putting 50% into the fund and 50% into a cash account. If you make money on the fund, you only make half as much as if you'd been fully invested, so half your profit has been \"\"taken\"\" when you get back the fund value + cash. If you lose money on the fund, pay you back 50% of your losses using the cash. Worst case scenario[*], the fund is completely wiped out but you still get back 50% of your initial investment. The combined fund+cash investment vehicle has covered exactly half your losses and it subtracts exactly half your profit. The manager has offered the terms you asked for (-50% leverage) but still doesn't have skin the game. Your proposed terms do not provide the incentive you expect. Why don't fund managers offer this? Because with a few exceptions 50% is an absurd amount for an investment fund to keep in cash, and nobody would buy it. If you want to use cash for that level of inverse leverage you call the bank, open an account, and keep the interest for yourself. You don't expect your managed fund to do it. Furthermore, supposing the manager did invest 100% of your subscription in the fund and cover the risk with their own capital, that means the only place they actually make any profit is the return on a risk that they take with their capital on the fund's wins/losses. You've given them no incentive to invest your money as well as their own: they might as well just put their capital in the fund and let you keep your money. They're better off without you since there's less paperwork, and they can invest whatever they like instead of carefully matching whatever money you send them. If you think they can make better picks than you, and you want them to do so on your behalf, then you need to pay them for the privilege. Riding their coattails for free is not a service they have any reason to offer you. It turns out that you cannot force someone to expose themselves to a particular risk other than by agreeing that they will expose themselves to that risk and then closely monitoring their investment portfolio. Otherwise they can find ways to insure/hedge the risk they're required to take on. If it's on their books but cancelled by something else then they aren't really exposed. So to provide incentive what we normally want is what Buffett does, which is for the fund manager to be invested in the fund to keep them keen, and to draw a salary in return for letting you in[**]. Their investment cannot precisely match yours because the fund manager's capital doesn't precisely match your capital. It doesn't cover your losses because it's in the same fund, so if your money vanishes the fund manager loses too and has nothing to cover you with. But it does provide the incentive. [*] All right, I admit it, worst case scenario there's a total banking collapse, end of civilization as we know it, and the cash account defaults. But then even in your proposed scheme it's possible that whatever assets the fund manager was using as security could fail to materialise. [**] So why, you might ask, do individual fund managers get bonuses in return for meeting fixed targets instead of only being part-paid in shares in their own fund whose value they can then maximise? I honestly don't know, but I suspect \"\"lots of reasons\"\". Probably the psychology of rewarding them for performance in a way that compares with other executive posts or professions they might take up instead of fund management. Probably the benefit to the fund itself, which wants to attract more clients, of beating certain benchmarks. Probably other things including, frankly, human error in setting their compensation packages.\"" }, { "docid": "550083", "title": "", "text": "\"I would create a \"\"Rollover IRA\"\". These IRAs are designed to take funds from a 401k and allow you to invest them without incurring a cash out penalty nor a tax due. You will have more choices than if you leave it at your old 401k. If you cash out the 401k, you'll have much less to invest ($1500 - penalty - taxes) vs. doing a rollover 401k where you'll still have $1500 to invest. Then, once the money is inside the new Rollover IRA you can invest in whatever you please. If you want to invest in Vanguard funds, I recommend opening the Rollover IRA at Vanguard. Here is Vanguard's information page about rollovers from 401ks: https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/401k-rollovers/401k-403b-to-ira-rollover-benefits When you next change jobs and have another 401k with funds in it, you can roll it into the same Rollover IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "345403", "title": "", "text": "\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"" }, { "docid": "444107", "title": "", "text": "\"Technically there could be a true cash fund, but the issue is it would need to have some sort of cost associated with it, which would mean it would have negative yield or would charge a fee. In some cases, this might be preferable to having it invested in \"\"cash equivalents,\"\" which as you note are not cash. It is important to note that there is nothing, even cash or physical precious metals, that is considered zero risk. They all just have different risks associated with them, that may be an issue under certain circumstances. In severe deflation, cash is king, and all non-cash asset classes and debt could go down in value. Under severe inflation, cash can become worthless. One respondent mentioned an alternative of stopping contributing to a 401k and depositing money in a bank, but that is not the same as cash either. In recent decades, people have been led to believe that depositing your money in the bank means you hold that in cash at the bank. That is untrue. They hold your deposit on their books and proceed to invest/loan that money, but those investments can turn sour in an economic and financial downturn. The same financial professionals would then remind you that, while this is true, there is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that will make you whole should the bank go under. Unfortunately, if enough banks went under due to lack of reserves, the FDIC may be unable to make depositors whole for lack of reserves. In fact, they were nearing this during the last financial crisis. The sad thing is that the financial industry is bias against offering what you said, because they make money by using your money. Fractional reserve banking. You are essentially holding IOUs from your bank when you have money on deposit with them. Getting back to the original question; you could do some searching and see if there is an institution that would act as a cash depository for physical cash in your IRA. There are IRA-approved ways of holding physical precious metals, which isn't all too different of a concept from holding physical cash. 401k plans are chosen by your company and often have very limited options available, meaning it'd be unlikely you could ever hold physical cash or physical precious metals in your 401k.\"" }, { "docid": "450132", "title": "", "text": "crank out expensive shares when markets are frothy Corporations go public (sell their shares for the first time) in market conditions that have a lot of liquidity (a lot of people buying shares) and when they have to make the fewest concessions to appease an investing public. When people are greedy and looking to make money without using too much due diligence. Think Netscape's IPO in 1995 or Snapchat's IPO in 2017. They also issue more shares after already being public in similar circumstances. Think Tesla's 1 billion dollar dilution in 2017. Dilution results in the 1 share owning less of the company. So in a less euphoric investing environment, share prices go down in response to dilution. See Viggle's stock for an example, if you can find a chart. issue debt Non-financial companies create bonds and sell bonds. Why is that surprising to you? Cash is cash. This is called corporate bonds or corporate debt. You can buy Apple bonds right now if you want from the same brokers that let you buy stocks. mutual fund investor Bernstein is making a cynical assessment of the markets which carries a lot of truth. Dumping shares on your mom's 401k is a running gag amongst some financial professionals. Basically mutual fund investors are typically the least well researched or most gullible market participants to sell to, influenced by brand name more than company fundamentals, who will balk at the concept of reading a prospectus. Financial professionals and CFOs have more information than their investors and can gain extended advantages because of this. Just take the emotions out of it and make objective assessments." }, { "docid": "79375", "title": "", "text": "The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute." }, { "docid": "59600", "title": "", "text": "It is really hard to tell where you should withdraw money from. So instead, I'll give you some pointers to make it easier for you to make the decision for yourself, while keeping the answer useful to others as well. I have 3 401ks, ... and some has post tax, non Roth money Why keeping 3 401ks? You can roll them over into an IRA or the one 401k which is still active (I assume here you're not currently employed with 3 different employers). This will also help you avoiding fees for too low balances on your IRAs. However, for the 401k with after tax (not Roth) balance - read the next part carefully. Post tax amounts are your basis. Generally, it is not a good idea to keep post-tax amounts in 401k/IRA, you usually do post-tax contributions to convert them to Roth ASAP. Withdrawing from 401k with basis may become a mess since you'll have to account for the basis portion of each withdrawal. Especially if you pool it with IRAs, so that one - don't rollover, keep it separately to make that accounting easier. I also have several smaller IRAs and Roth IRAs, Keep in mind the RMD requirements. Roth IRAs don't have those, and are non-taxable income, so you would probably want to keep them as long as possible. This is relevant for 401k as well. Again, consolidating will help you with the fees. I'm concerned about having easily accessible cash for emergencies. I suggest keeping Roth amounts for this purpose as they're easily accessible and bear no taxable consequence. Other than emergencies don't touch them for as long as you can. I do have some other money in taxable investments For those, consider re-balancing to a more conservative style, but beware of the capital gains taxes if you have a lot of gains accumulated. You may want consider loss-harvesting (selling the positions in the red) to liquidate investments without adverse tax consequences while getting some of your cash back into the checking account. In any case, depending on your tax bracket, capital gains taxes are generally lower (down to 0%) than ordinary income taxes (which is what you pay for IRA/401k withdrawals), so you would probably want to start with these, after careful planning and taking the RMD and the Social Security (if you're getting any) into account." }, { "docid": "234286", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is \"\"pay cash now.\"\" A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too. At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy. Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage. I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises). That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it. A very simple strategy to calculate and/or minimize this risk would be to invest the funds in another investment. If your rate of return exceeds the interest rate minus any tax preference (e.g. 4% minus say a 25% deduction = 3%), your money is better off there, obviously. And, indeed, when interest rates are only 4%, it may may be possible to find that. That said, in most instances, a CD or an inflation protected bond or so won't give you that rate of return. There, you'd need to look at stocks- slightly more risky. When interest rates are back to normal- say 5 or 6%, it gets even harder. If you could, however, find a better return than the effective interest rate, it makes the most sense to do that investment, hold it as a hedge to pay off the mortgage (see, you get your security back if you decide not to work!), and pocket the difference. If you can't do that, your only real reason to hold the cash should be the cash flow situation.\"" }, { "docid": "194155", "title": "", "text": "Unless you have an actual hardship (bankruptcy or other emergency), you will be better off leaving that money alone. This excellent answer, gives more than enough reasons why a withdrawal or loan is not recommended. I would love some advice because I need to know if I should contribute more into my 401k or less. If your priority to purchase is high enough, it may be worth considering stopping 401k contributions for a short time to help pile up a down payment. I also encourage you to consider that if you cannot pool the money from non-retirement sources, then you cannot afford that much house at this time. This might mean looking for cheaper houses or delaying purchase for a number of years." } ]

[ { "docid": "444107", "title": "", "text": "\"Technically there could be a true cash fund, but the issue is it would need to have some sort of cost associated with it, which would mean it would have negative yield or would charge a fee. In some cases, this might be preferable to having it invested in \"\"cash equivalents,\"\" which as you note are not cash. It is important to note that there is nothing, even cash or physical precious metals, that is considered zero risk. They all just have different risks associated with them, that may be an issue under certain circumstances. In severe deflation, cash is king, and all non-cash asset classes and debt could go down in value. Under severe inflation, cash can become worthless. One respondent mentioned an alternative of stopping contributing to a 401k and depositing money in a bank, but that is not the same as cash either. In recent decades, people have been led to believe that depositing your money in the bank means you hold that in cash at the bank. That is untrue. They hold your deposit on their books and proceed to invest/loan that money, but those investments can turn sour in an economic and financial downturn. The same financial professionals would then remind you that, while this is true, there is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that will make you whole should the bank go under. Unfortunately, if enough banks went under due to lack of reserves, the FDIC may be unable to make depositors whole for lack of reserves. In fact, they were nearing this during the last financial crisis. The sad thing is that the financial industry is bias against offering what you said, because they make money by using your money. Fractional reserve banking. You are essentially holding IOUs from your bank when you have money on deposit with them. Getting back to the original question; you could do some searching and see if there is an institution that would act as a cash depository for physical cash in your IRA. There are IRA-approved ways of holding physical precious metals, which isn't all too different of a concept from holding physical cash. 401k plans are chosen by your company and often have very limited options available, meaning it'd be unlikely you could ever hold physical cash or physical precious metals in your 401k.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "391835", "title": "", "text": "I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme." }, { "docid": "528698", "title": "", "text": "&gt;I say better to distribute cash to the shareholders who can then choose for themselves whether to reinvest it in the company or elsewhere. Why shouldn't Apple (which I agree with you is butchering its shareholder's returns) reinvest the money in the company or in other ventures that produce returns for shareholders? My argument was simply that dividends diminish the earnings potential of firms' future cash flows. Now, if they are unable to find or invest in positive NPV projects, then I would agree a dividend payment is the best route to go. However, I find that highly suspect for firms like Apple, Microsoft and GE. They may not be able sustain double-digit growth rates, but given strong balance sheets and cost of capital, they surely should be able to find positive NPV projects that would contribute more gains for shareholders than stocks, which have been struggling for momentum. The only reason to invest in a company like GE these days is for the dividend cash flow, rather than the company's earnings and future growth prospects. That seems sad to me. But, hey, what do I know?" }, { "docid": "234286", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is \"\"pay cash now.\"\" A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too. At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy. Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage. I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises). That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it. A very simple strategy to calculate and/or minimize this risk would be to invest the funds in another investment. If your rate of return exceeds the interest rate minus any tax preference (e.g. 4% minus say a 25% deduction = 3%), your money is better off there, obviously. And, indeed, when interest rates are only 4%, it may may be possible to find that. That said, in most instances, a CD or an inflation protected bond or so won't give you that rate of return. There, you'd need to look at stocks- slightly more risky. When interest rates are back to normal- say 5 or 6%, it gets even harder. If you could, however, find a better return than the effective interest rate, it makes the most sense to do that investment, hold it as a hedge to pay off the mortgage (see, you get your security back if you decide not to work!), and pocket the difference. If you can't do that, your only real reason to hold the cash should be the cash flow situation.\"" }, { "docid": "213976", "title": "", "text": "To me it depends on things like your net worth, debt, and how other assets are invested. Currently you have 25K invested in the company you work for. If you have 100K in student loans, are a renter, and 12K in your 401K, then I would recommend exercising almost all of your options. In that case you have a much to large part of your world wrapped up in your company. If you have 250K in your 401K, own a home and have an emergency fund with no debt then you are fine with letting it ride. You can afford to absorb a loss of 25K without wrecking your net worth. More than likely, you are somewhere in between (just statistics speaking there). So why not exercise some of them now with the purpose of improving your financial situation? Say do a 1/3 now and when they come available. When 401ks were first invented people put almost all of their money in their company stock. They lost just about everything when the company went down in value and were often a victim of layoffs exasperating the issue. This is akin to the same situation. Most financial advisers recommend against putting any 401K money to company stock, or at least limiting the amount." }, { "docid": "384644", "title": "", "text": "Here are three key factors that you do not explicitly state: So while I cannot say exactly why the tax law is the way it is, I can infer that it encourages long-term investments rather than short-term, which would seem to be a good thing for society overall. The fast that capital gains are taxed at all somewhat discourages cashing out investments (although I suspect it's more of a nuisance factor - the cash received is likely more on an incentive that the tax is a disincentive)." }, { "docid": "469519", "title": "", "text": "Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively." }, { "docid": "5180", "title": "", "text": "Your analysis is not comparing apples to apples which is why it looks like investing money in a non-qualified account is better than a 401k (traditional or Roth). For the non-qual you are using post tax dollars (money that has already been taxed). Now on top of that original tax you are also going to pay capital gains tax for any growth plus dividend rates for any dividends it throws off. For the 401k, let's assume for the moment that $10,000 is invested in a traditional and that the marginal tax rate is always 20%. And for growth let's assume 10x. With a traditional your money will grow to $100,000 and then the IRS gets $20,000 as you pull the money out. The result is a net 80,000 for you. For a Roth 401k, it is taxed first so only $8,000 gets invested. This then grows by the same multiplier to $80,000. (Until you consider changing tax rates the Roth and traditional give the same growth of money). Considering the non-qual option, like with the Roth we only have $8,000 to invest. However in this case you will not realize the full 10x growth as you will have to pay taxes on $72,000. These are taxes that the 401ks (and also IRAs) do not pay. There are other reasons to consider non-qual over maxing out your 401k. Liquidity, quality of investments, and fees being some of those. But the capital gains rate vs. ordinary income rate is not one, as the money in the non-qual still has to go through that ordinary income tax first before it is available to even invest." }, { "docid": "436930", "title": "", "text": "$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you." }, { "docid": "122491", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"" }, { "docid": "483268", "title": "", "text": "The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company." }, { "docid": "117845", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "496170", "title": "", "text": "sell drugs? (joking) In all seriousness though, your options to legally invest this money are limited, which leaves you to extra-legal options..... which many young people engage, different kind of candy I guess. Ok so you cannot invest into stocks, to day trade. Because you're not an adult. You can put the money in a bank, but the interest rate on that amount of money is in the realm of ~0.1%. You can use the money to seed another legal business venture, say another kind of better candy. My advice is to get a parental unit to put the cash into a mutual fund, in your name... then hand that over to you when you turn 18." }, { "docid": "32009", "title": "", "text": "\"So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point \"\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund...\"\" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund. The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control. Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested. Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions. Use them to the maximum your employer will match. After that OWN your IRA. Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first. Contribute the calendar maximum. Then get a traditional. The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund.\"" }, { "docid": "184077", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"" }, { "docid": "137267", "title": "", "text": "Paying off the high-interest debt is a good first start. Paying interest, or compound interest on debt is like paying somebody to make you poor. As for your 401k, you want to contribute enough to get the full match from your employer. You might also consider checking out the fees associated with your 401k with an online fee analyzer. If it turns out you're getting reamed with fees, you can reduce them by fiddling with your investments. Checking your investment options is always a good idea since jobs frequently change them. Opening an IRA is a good call. If you're eligible for both Roth and Traditional IRAs, consider the following: Most financial institutions (brokers or banks) can help you open an IRA in a matter of minutes. If you shop around, you will find very cheap or even no fee options. Many brokers might try to get your business by giving away something for ‘free.' Just make sure you read the fine print so you understand the conditions of their promotional offer. Whichever IRA you choose, you want to make sure that it's managed properly. Some people might say, ‘go for it, do it yourself’ but I strongly disagree with that approach. Stock picking is a waste of time and market timing rarely works. I'd look into flat fee financial advisors. You have lots of options. Just make sure they hear you out, and can design/execute an investment plan specific to your needs At a minimum, they should: Hope this is helpful." }, { "docid": "345030", "title": "", "text": "First off, you have done very well to be in your financial position at your age. Congratulations. I first started investing seriously about 10 years ago, and when I started, I had a similar attitude to you. Learning how to invest is a journey, and it will take you a while to learn both the intellectual and emotional sides of investing. First off, there is nothing wrong with having a chunk of cash that you aren't investing effectively. It is far better to be losing earning power WRT inflation that it is to make a bad investment, where you can lose all your money quite quickly. I have perhaps 15% of my capital just sitting around right now because I don't have any place where I'm excited to put it. For your IRA, I would look at the options you have, and choose one that is reasonably well diversified and has low costs. In most cases, an index fund is a reasonable choice. My 401K goes into an S&P 500 index fund, and I don't have to worry about it. Beyond that, I suggest spending some time learning about investing, and then making some small and conservative investments. I've learned a lot from the Motley Fool web site." }, { "docid": "11311", "title": "", "text": "\"Why only long term investments? What do they care if I buy and sell shares in a company in the same year? Simple, your actually investing when you hold it for a long term. If you hold a stock for a week or a month there is very little that can happen to change the price, in a perfect market the value of a company should stay the same from yesterday to today so long as there is no news(a perfect market cannot exist). When you hold a stock for a long term you really are investing in the company and saying \"\"this company will grow\"\". Short term investing is mostly speculation and speculation causes securities to be incorrectly valued. So when a retail investor puts money into something like Facebook for example they can easily be burned by speculation whether its to the upside or downside. If the goal is to get me to invest my money, then why not give apply capital gains tax to my savings account at my local bank? Or a CD account? I believe your gains on these accounts are taxed... Not sure at what rate. If the goal is to help the overall health of business, how does it do that? During an IPO, the business certainly raises money, but after that I'm just buying and selling shares with other private shareholders. Why does the government give me an incentive to do this (and then hold onto it for at least a year)? There are many reasons why a company cares about its market price: A companies market cap is calculated by price * shares outstanding. A market cap is basically what the market is saying your company is worth. A company can offer more shares or sell shares they currently hold in order to raise even more capital. A company can offer shares instead of cash when buying out another company. It can pay for many things with shares. Many executives and top level employees are payed with stock options, so they defiantly want to see there price higher. these are some basic reasons but there are more and they can be more complex.\"" }, { "docid": "477552", "title": "", "text": "\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \"\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\"\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "398520", "title": "", "text": "Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such. You have 3 options: 1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k. 2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners. 3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement). My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same. You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement. If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one." } ]

[ { "docid": "481728", "title": "", "text": "\"My 401k allows cash holdings to 100% if desired. I'm not sure why some won't, they are making money on your money after all. If you are looking to the funds vehicles for investing suggestions however, they will never allow cash. I found you must go into \"\"Invest on my own\"\" vehicle to make that change. I have beaten and timed this market several times by sitting with cash on the sidelines. The only time I missed it was when I talked to a fund administrator in 2008 dot com crash and stayed in at this suggestion. I told him I didn't see where the market could go much higher as I had made 12-28% on some funds. He was dead wrong of course and I lost 50% that year. Now, trust me, in 2017, assets are grossly overvalued. If they won't let you deposit to cash, don't invest and just save your money until the next crash.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "213976", "title": "", "text": "To me it depends on things like your net worth, debt, and how other assets are invested. Currently you have 25K invested in the company you work for. If you have 100K in student loans, are a renter, and 12K in your 401K, then I would recommend exercising almost all of your options. In that case you have a much to large part of your world wrapped up in your company. If you have 250K in your 401K, own a home and have an emergency fund with no debt then you are fine with letting it ride. You can afford to absorb a loss of 25K without wrecking your net worth. More than likely, you are somewhere in between (just statistics speaking there). So why not exercise some of them now with the purpose of improving your financial situation? Say do a 1/3 now and when they come available. When 401ks were first invented people put almost all of their money in their company stock. They lost just about everything when the company went down in value and were often a victim of layoffs exasperating the issue. This is akin to the same situation. Most financial advisers recommend against putting any 401K money to company stock, or at least limiting the amount." }, { "docid": "221117", "title": "", "text": "I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature." }, { "docid": "79375", "title": "", "text": "The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute." }, { "docid": "291548", "title": "", "text": "Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000. If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares. The price in the market is unimportant. Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense. It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction. It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares. Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased. Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price. Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege. I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense. It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2. The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment." }, { "docid": "511861", "title": "", "text": "http://dailyfinance.com Enter a stock ticker, then click on the Chain link to the left. Then, click on the option tickers to see their charts. EDIT: the site has changed, and there are no more option charts. So why are option charts so tough to find? Options are derivatives of the stock. Option prices are defined by a formula. The inputs are stock pricxe, strike, days to expiration, dividend, risk-free interest rate, and volatility. Volatility is the only thing that cannot be easily looked up. With a Black-Scholes calculator, and some reasonable volatility selections, it's possible to make your own fairly accurate option chart. I don't think it's very enlightening, though. The interesting things are: the stock price movement (as always), and the nature of option pricing behavior in general (understanding how the formula represents crowd behavior)." }, { "docid": "297288", "title": "", "text": "\"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a \"\"big elephant to eat\"\" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes. Secondly, it is about cutting expenses. Cable: off. No eating out or vacations. Cut back on cell phone plans, only basic clothing. Gift giving is of the $5 variety and only for those very close to you. Forget lattes, etc. Depending on your income I would cut 401K contributions to zero or only up to the company match (if your household income is above 150K/year). Third, it is about earning more. Ebay, deliver pizzas, cut grass, overtime, whatever. All extra dollars go to credit card balance reduction. At a minimum, you should find an extra $1000/month; however, I would shoot for 2K. If you can find 2K, you will be done with this in 13 months. I know the math doesn't work out for that, but once you get momentum, you find more. How good will it feel to be out from under this oppression next March? I know you can do this without cashing in the annuity or refinancing. Do you believe it?\"" }, { "docid": "92370", "title": "", "text": "\"The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked \"\"But why is it that way?\"\" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision. In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about.\"" }, { "docid": "345403", "title": "", "text": "\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"" }, { "docid": "117845", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "345030", "title": "", "text": "First off, you have done very well to be in your financial position at your age. Congratulations. I first started investing seriously about 10 years ago, and when I started, I had a similar attitude to you. Learning how to invest is a journey, and it will take you a while to learn both the intellectual and emotional sides of investing. First off, there is nothing wrong with having a chunk of cash that you aren't investing effectively. It is far better to be losing earning power WRT inflation that it is to make a bad investment, where you can lose all your money quite quickly. I have perhaps 15% of my capital just sitting around right now because I don't have any place where I'm excited to put it. For your IRA, I would look at the options you have, and choose one that is reasonably well diversified and has low costs. In most cases, an index fund is a reasonable choice. My 401K goes into an S&P 500 index fund, and I don't have to worry about it. Beyond that, I suggest spending some time learning about investing, and then making some small and conservative investments. I've learned a lot from the Motley Fool web site." }, { "docid": "477552", "title": "", "text": "\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \"\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\"\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "586572", "title": "", "text": "\"Are “auto income generators” scams or alternative investment channels? I wouldn't go so far as to say that these are scams so much as grossly exaggerated marketing claims. If it sounds too good to be true then it usually is. Auto auto income generator, for example, hosts a site that you can use to produce revenue from ads. In order to get enough traffic to generate the amount of income they promise you have to put in a lot of work, hardly making it \"\"automatic.\"\" I can't find anything on auto bit coin builder, however. They promise to pay out an outrageously high fixed-return with vague descriptions about \"\"investments.\"\" This is purely speculation since there is not very much information about this small site, but it may be a \"\"pyramid\"\" or \"\"Ponzi\"\" scheme. They promise a return higher than traditional investments, offer extra incentives for referrals, and offer a list of excuses for why funds may be pending even though the transfer happens \"\"INSTANTLY\"\" on their end. The fact that they only deal in crpytocurrency may also be an attempt to remain anonymous.\"" }, { "docid": "483268", "title": "", "text": "The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company." }, { "docid": "430931", "title": "", "text": "Specifically on the subject of maxing out your 401k, there are several downsides: The employer match usually only applies to the first 6%. Some employers offer no match at all. You listed the match as a pro, but I think it should be pointed out that you can usually get this benefit without maxing out your plan. The investment options are limited. Usually there is at least one fund available from all the common investment classes, but these may not be your preferred funds if you were able to choose for yourself. Fees can be very high. If you are working for a small to medium size company, the fees for each fund will often be higher than for the same funds in a plan offered by a large company. Fees are usually related to the dollar amount of assets under management. Each person has a different tax situation, so if you are single and making 6 figures, you might still be in the 25% bracket even after maxing out your 401k, but the same person filing jointly with a spouse that makes less could get down to the 15% bracket with a smaller contribution. I meet my retirement savings goals without maxing out the 401k. As long as the amount is above the employer match amount, my second priority is to funnel as much money as possible in to my IRA (because I get lower fees and better investment options from Vanguard)." }, { "docid": "291578", "title": "", "text": "\"Rolling an old 401k into a new 401k is generally only for ease of management. For example, how many bank accounts do you really want? As long as the funds are reasonably allocated I've found it can be a useful \"\"mind game\"\" to leave it separate. Sometimes it's desirable to ignore an account and let it grow, and it is a nice surprise when finally adding all the account balances together. In other words, I keep thinking I've got X (the amount of my biggest or current 401k), which affects/helps my habits and desire to save. When I add them all together I'm shocked to find out I've got Y (the total of all accounts). Personally, I've had big paperwork problems transferring an old 403b (same type process as 401k) even when I had an adviser helping me move it. In the end it was worth moving it, because I'm having the adviser manage it. I'm actually writing this answer specifically because I recently moved a big 401k into a Traditional IRA. A rep from the brokerage, representing my previous employer, kept calling me to find out how they could help (I didn't brush him off). I found that using an IRA provided me with the opportunity to do self-guided investments in funds or even individual stocks, well beyond the limited selection of the old company's 401k. It was useful/interesting to me to invest in low-fee vehicles such as index funds (ie: the Buffett recommendation), and I'll find some stocks as well. Oh and when the old company 401k has certain funds being discontinued, I didn't want to notice the mandated changes years later. So, I'd suggest you consider management and flexibility of the 401k or equivalent, and any of your special personal circumstances/goals. If you end up with a few retirement accounts, I suggest you use an account aggregating website to see or follow your net worth. I know many who, based on various concerns and their portfolio, find an acceptable website to use.\"" }, { "docid": "450132", "title": "", "text": "crank out expensive shares when markets are frothy Corporations go public (sell their shares for the first time) in market conditions that have a lot of liquidity (a lot of people buying shares) and when they have to make the fewest concessions to appease an investing public. When people are greedy and looking to make money without using too much due diligence. Think Netscape's IPO in 1995 or Snapchat's IPO in 2017. They also issue more shares after already being public in similar circumstances. Think Tesla's 1 billion dollar dilution in 2017. Dilution results in the 1 share owning less of the company. So in a less euphoric investing environment, share prices go down in response to dilution. See Viggle's stock for an example, if you can find a chart. issue debt Non-financial companies create bonds and sell bonds. Why is that surprising to you? Cash is cash. This is called corporate bonds or corporate debt. You can buy Apple bonds right now if you want from the same brokers that let you buy stocks. mutual fund investor Bernstein is making a cynical assessment of the markets which carries a lot of truth. Dumping shares on your mom's 401k is a running gag amongst some financial professionals. Basically mutual fund investors are typically the least well researched or most gullible market participants to sell to, influenced by brand name more than company fundamentals, who will balk at the concept of reading a prospectus. Financial professionals and CFOs have more information than their investors and can gain extended advantages because of this. Just take the emotions out of it and make objective assessments." }, { "docid": "528698", "title": "", "text": "&gt;I say better to distribute cash to the shareholders who can then choose for themselves whether to reinvest it in the company or elsewhere. Why shouldn't Apple (which I agree with you is butchering its shareholder's returns) reinvest the money in the company or in other ventures that produce returns for shareholders? My argument was simply that dividends diminish the earnings potential of firms' future cash flows. Now, if they are unable to find or invest in positive NPV projects, then I would agree a dividend payment is the best route to go. However, I find that highly suspect for firms like Apple, Microsoft and GE. They may not be able sustain double-digit growth rates, but given strong balance sheets and cost of capital, they surely should be able to find positive NPV projects that would contribute more gains for shareholders than stocks, which have been struggling for momentum. The only reason to invest in a company like GE these days is for the dividend cash flow, rather than the company's earnings and future growth prospects. That seems sad to me. But, hey, what do I know?" }, { "docid": "557506", "title": "", "text": "\"From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward. Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008. So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse. You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is). If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead. The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as \"\"irrational\"\". Paying off debt feels good. Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well). If that makes them mindless \"\"minions\"\" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)\"" }, { "docid": "64459", "title": "", "text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match." } ]

[ { "docid": "509819", "title": "", "text": "I am a believer in stocks for the long term, I sat on the S&P right though the last crash, and am 15% below the high before the crash. For individual stocks, you need to look more closely, and often ask yourself about its valuation. The trick is to buy right and not be afraid to sell when the stock appears to be too high for the underlying fundamentals. Before the dotcom bubble I bought Motorola at $40. Sold some at $80, $100, and out at $120. Coworkers who bought in were laughing as it went to $160. But soon after, the high tech bubble burst, and my sales at $100 looked good in hindsight. The stock you are looking at - would you buy more at today's price? If not, it may be time to sell at least some of that position." } ]

[ { "docid": "22304", "title": "", "text": "This is rather simple if you understand a trailing limit order but to be sure I am going to explain a limit, trailing limit, and trailing LIT order. I am going to use an example assuming that you already own a stock and want to sell it. Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 PG @ 65.00. This order will only be executed if the bid price of PG is at $65.0000 or greater. Trailing Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 CAT @ 85.25 with a trailing 5%. This order will be executed when CAT drops 5% below the highest point it reaches after you place this order. So if you place this order at 85.25 and the stock drops 5% to $80.9875, your order will be executed. However, if the stock jumps to $98, the order will not be executed until the stock falls to $93.10. The sell point will go up with the stock and will always remain at the specified % or $ amount behind the high point. Trailing Limit If Touched Order I place an order to sell 100 INTC @ 24.75 with a trailing 5% if the stock touches $25.00. Essentially, this is the same as the trailing limit except that it doesn't take effect until the stock first gets $25.00. I think the page they provide to explain this is confusing because I think they are explaining it from the shorting a stock perspective instead of the selling a stock you want to profit from. I could also be wrong in how I understand it. My advice would be to either call their customer support and ask for a better explanation or what I do in my finances, avoid things I don't understand." }, { "docid": "186184", "title": "", "text": "\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"" }, { "docid": "449280", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as \"\"sell to open\"\" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are. As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price.\"" }, { "docid": "195767", "title": "", "text": "@BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so." }, { "docid": "428017", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the first misconception to clear up is that you are implying the price of a stock is set by a specific person. It is not. The price of a stock is equal to the value that someone most recently traded at. If Apple last traded at $100/share, then Apple shares are worth $100. If good news about Apple hits the market and people holding the shares ask for more money, and the most recent trade becomes $105, then that is now what Apple shares are worth. Remember that generally speaking, the company itself does not sell you its shares - instead, some other investor sells you shares they already own. When a company sells you shares, it is called a 'public offering'. To get to your actual question, saying something is 'priced in' implies that the 'market' (that is, investors who are buying and selling shares in the company) has already considered the impacts of that something. For example, if you open up your newspaper and read an article about IBM inventing a new type of computer chip, you might want to invest in IBM. But, the rest of the market has also heard the news. So everyone else has already traded IBM assuming that this new chip would be made. That means when you buy, even if sales later go up because of the new chip, those sales were already considered by the person who chose the price to sell you the shares at. One principle of the stock market (not agreed to by all) is called market efficiency. Generally, if there were perfect market efficiency, then every piece of public information about a company would be perfectly integrated into its stock price. In such a scenario, the only way to get real value when buying a company would be to have secret information of some sort. It would mean that everyone's collective best-guess about what will happen to the company has been \"\"priced-in\"\" to the most recent share trade.\"" }, { "docid": "124395", "title": "", "text": "\"As Kurt Vonnegut said, the way to make money is to be there when large amounts of money are changing hands and take a little for yourself; they'll never notice. That's what transaction costs are: when a fund buys or sells stocks a bit of the money goes to the folks who handle the transaction. When you personally buy or sell stocks a bit of the money goes to the broker in the form of a fee. (and, no, no fee brokers don't work for free; they just hide the fee by not getting you the best possible price). So frequent transactions (i.e., higher portfolio turnover) mean that those little bits of money are going to the intermediaries more often. That's what \"\"higher transaction costs\"\" refers to -- the costs are higher than in a fund that buys and sells less often. In short, those higher transaction costs are a consequence of higher turnover; nothing nefarious there.\"" }, { "docid": "558921", "title": "", "text": "Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers. When most people own stock they do so through a broker. Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage. This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now. At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed. Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0. The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell. If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price." }, { "docid": "116846", "title": "", "text": "\"When people talk about \"\"the price\"\" of a stock, they usually mean one of the following: Last price: The price at which a trade most recently took place. If someone sold (and someone else bought) shares of XYZ for $20 each, then until another trade occurs, the last price of the stock will be quoted at $20. Bid price: The highest price at which someone is currently offering to buy the stock. Ask price: The lowest price at which someone is currently offering to sell the stock. As you can see, all of these are completely determined by the people buying and selling the stock.\"" }, { "docid": "506238", "title": "", "text": "1) You ignore dividends. You can hold your 10 million shares and never sell them and still get cash to live on if the security pays dividends. McDonalds stock pays 3% in dividends (a year). If you owned 10 million shares of McDonalds you would get 75,000 every three months. I am sure you could live on 25,000 a month. 2) Enron was an energy company. They sold energy and made a profit (or rather were supposed to). Enron didn't make their money by selling stock. McDonalds makes their money by selling hamburgers (and other food). The income of a company comes from their customers, not from selling stock. 3) IF you sold all of your 10 million shares within a short time frame it, likely, would drive the price of the stock down. But you do not need a billion dollars to live on. If you sold 1000 shares each month you would have plenty for buying cars and pizza. Selling 1000 shares may drive the price of the stock down for a minute or two. But the rest of the transactions, for that security made the same day, would quickly obscure the effect you had on the stock. 4) When you buy stock your money does not (usualy) go to the company. If I were to buy 100 shares of McDonalds, McDonalds would not get $11670.That money is (usually) paid to a 'Market Maker' who, in turn, will use the cash to buy MCD from other individual shareholders (presumably for less than 116.70 a share)." }, { "docid": "234361", "title": "", "text": "If the price has gone up from what it was when the person bought, he may sell to collect his profit and spend the money. If someone intends to keep his money in the market, the trick is that you don't know when the price of a given stock will peak. If you could tell the future, sure, you'd buy when the stock was at its lowest point, just before it started up, and then sell at the highest point, just before it started down. But no one knows for sure what those points are. If a stockholder really KNOWS that demand is increasing and the price WILL go up, sure, it would be foolish to sell. But you can never KNOW that. (Or if you have some way that you do know that, please call me and share your knowledge.)" }, { "docid": "537212", "title": "", "text": "Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position." }, { "docid": "99021", "title": "", "text": "When you buy a stock and sell a covered call, the call can't be valued higher than the stock, right? How can a call on a $10 stock sell for more than the stock? So, the initial position of a covered call will cost you something. The transaction is a debit to you. The net amount of the deal, usually prices as per stock/option single share. For the image showing net credit, it's as if you expect to get paid for you to take this deal." }, { "docid": "103447", "title": "", "text": "This is probably a very opinion-based Q&A. But anyway: My solution to such questions is to have multiple layers of emergency funds. I have one amount in a bank account that I do not like to tap, but can (and do) when I need money. This is most close to your infrequent but not completely surprising moments of cash need. I have a second layer in the form of stocks. As I understand that selling stocks should not be done when you need money, but when the stock price is good, this provides a fairly high barrier to selling it on a whim. Before I do so, especially if the stock price isn't at a local max, it would have to be an emergency. My third layer is even more fixed investment which I can't access with online brokerage. The physical aspect makes sure that it has to be a real, serious emergency before I turn that into cash. If you have such a layered approach, the question is not black and white anymore, and easier to answer." }, { "docid": "239714", "title": "", "text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect. However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock.\"" }, { "docid": "31037", "title": "", "text": "My friend Harry Sit wrote an excellent article No Tax Advantage In RSU. The punchline is this. The day the RSUs vested, it's pretty much you got $XXX in taxable income and then bought the stock at the price at that moment. The clock for long term gain starts the same as if I bought the stock that day. Historical side note - In the insane days of the Dotcom bubble, people found they got RSUs vested and worth, say, $1M. Crash. The shares are worth $100K. The $1M was ordinary income, the basis was $1M and the $900K loss could offset cap gains, not ordinary income above $3000/yr. Let me be clear - the tax bill was $250K+ but the poor taxpayer had $100K in stock to sell to pay that bill. Ooops. This is the origin of the 'sell the day it vests' advice. The shares you own will be long term for capital gain a year after vesting. After the year, be sure to sell those particular shares and you're all set. No different than anyone selling the LT shares of stock when owning multiple lots. But. Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you feel it's time to sell, you can easily lose the tax savings while watching the stock fall waiting for the clock to tick to one year." }, { "docid": "66834", "title": "", "text": "\"It's impossibly difficult to time the market. Generally speaking, you should buy low and sell high. Picking 25% as an arbitrary ceiling on your gains seems incorrect to me because sometimes you'll want to hold a stock for longer or sell it sooner, and those decisions should be based on your research (or if you need the money), not an arbitrary number. To answer your questions: If the reasons you still bought a stock in the first place are still valid, then you should hold and/or buy more. If something has changed and you can't find a reason to buy more, then consider selling. Keep in mind you'll pay capital gains taxes on anything you sell that is not in a tax-deferred (e.g. retirement) account. No, it does not make sense to do a wash sale where you sell and buy the same stock. Capital gains taxes are one reason. I'm not sure why you would ever want to do this -- what reasons were you considering? You can always sell just some of the shares. See above (and link) regarding wash sales. Buying more of a stock you already own is called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". It's an effective method when the reasons are right. DCA minimizes variance due to buying or selling a large amount of shares at an arbitrary single-day price and instead spreads the cost or sale basis out over time. All that said, there's nothing wrong with locking in a gain by selling all or some shares of a winner. Buy low, sell high!\"" }, { "docid": "48718", "title": "", "text": "\"You can hold a wide variety of investments in your TFSA account, including stocks such as SLF. But if the stocks are being purchased via a company stock purchase plan, they are typically deposited in a regular margin account with a brokerage firm (a few companies may issue physical stock certificates but that is very rare these days). That account would not be a TFSA but you can perform what's called an \"\"in-kind\"\" transfer to move them into a TFSA that you open with either the same brokerage firm, or a different one. There will be a fee for the transfer - check with the brokerage that currently holds the stock to find out how costly that will be. Assuming the stock gained in value while you held it outside the TFSA, this transfer will result in capital gains tax that you'll have to pay when you file your taxes for the year in which the transfer occurs. The tax would be calculated by taking the value at time of transfer, minus the purchase price (or the market value at time of purchase, if your plan allowed you to buy it at a discounted price; the discounted amount will be automatically taxed by your employer). 50% of the capital gain is added to your annual income when calculating taxes owed. Normally when you sell a stock that has lost value, you can actually get a \"\"capital loss\"\" deduction that is used to offset gains that you made in other stocks, or redeemed against capital gains tax paid in previous years, or carried forward to apply against gains in future years. However, if the stock decreased in value and you transfer it, you are not eligible to claim a capital loss. I'm not sure why you said \"\"TFSA for a family member\"\", as you cannot directly contribute to someone else's TFSA account. You can give them a gift of money or stocks, which they can deposit in their TFSA account, but that involves that extra step of gifting, and the money/stocks become their property to do with as they please. Now that I've (hopefully) answered all your questions, let me offer you some advice, as someone who also participates in an employee stock purchase plan. Holding stock in the company that you work for is a bad idea. The reason is simple: if something terrible happens to the company, their stock will plummet and at the same time they may be forced to lay off many employees. So just at the time when you lose your job and might want to sell your stock, suddenly the value of your stocks has gone way down! So you really should sell your company shares at least once a year, and then use that money to invest in your TFSA account. You also don't want to put all your eggs in one basket - you should be spreading your investment among many companies, or better yet, buy index mutual funds or ETFs which hold all the companies in a certain index. There's lots of good info about index investing available at Canadian Couch Potato. The types of investments recommended there are all possible to purchase inside a TFSA account, to shelter the growth from being taxed. EDIT: Here is an article from MoneySense that talks about transferring stocks into a TFSA. It also mentions the importance of having a diversified portfolio!\"" }, { "docid": "575662", "title": "", "text": "\"I can sell a PUT on it a bit out of the money, and I seemingly \"\"win\"\" either way: i.e. make money on selling the PUT, and either I get to pick up the stock cheaper if XYZ goes down, or the PUT expires worthless. In 2008, I see a bank stock (pick one) trading at $100. I buy that put from you, a $90 strike, and pay you $5 for the option. The bank blew up, and trades for a dollar. I then buy the $1 share and sell it to you for $90. You made $500 on the sale of the put, but lost $8900 when it went bad. You don't win either way, there is a chart you can construct (or a table) showing your profit or loss for every price of the underlying stock. When selling a put, you need to know what happens if the stock goes to zero since the odds of such an occurrence is non-trivial. A LEAP is already an option. With the new coding scheme for options, I'm not sure there's really any distinction between a LEAP and standard option, the LEAP just starts with a long-till-expiration time. There are no options on LEAPS that I am aware of, as they are options already.\"" }, { "docid": "272790", "title": "", "text": "\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \"\"fundamental indexation\"\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \"\"price-weighted\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \"\"fundamentals\"\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "370995", "title": "", "text": "\"My theory is that for every stock you buy, you should have an exit strategy and follow it. It is too hard to let emotions rule if you let your default strategy be \"\"let's see what happens.\"\" and emotional investing will almost never serve you well. So before buying a stock, set a maximum loss and maximum gain that you will watch for on the stock, and when it hits that number sell. At the very least, when it hits one of your numbers, consciously make a decision that you are effectively buying it again at the current price if you decide to stay in. When you do this, set a new high and low price and repeat the above strategy.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "253926", "title": "", "text": "\"The dow jones is an index of 30 stocks that's weighted based on the price per share of these stocks. To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Prices are the result of supply and demand. Demand is defined as simply as \"\"I want this badly enough to pay cash for it\"\", \"\"supply is \"\"I own this and don't want to own it, therefore I'll sell it\"\" When investors go about deciding they'd like to buy some stock from people who own it and are wanting to sell it, a market is generated and a price both are willing to sell/buy at is found. If the price is too high/low, you won't sell or buy. The price has to be \"\"right\"\" based on your own personal valuation. Since these trades are done through an exchange and are so common, literally millions of shares are traded per day, you get the best price available at that moment for your shares. If person A is only willing to give you 100 dollars and person B is willing to give you 100.01, screw person A. I'm selling shares to person B. When this done on a macro-level (millions of shares traded per day) the exchanges will track and make public the \"\"price movement\"\" of what the market is willing to give for each and every publicly traded stock. TLDR: SUPPLY AND DEMAND. DOW USES THEIR OWN METHODS.\"" }, { "docid": "330041", "title": "", "text": "\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "120611", "title": "", "text": "(Note: I am omitting the currency units. While I strongly suspect it's US$ I don't know from the chart. The system works the same no matter what the currency.) A call or a put is the right to sell (put) or buy (call) shares at a certain price on a certain day. This is why you see a whole range of prices. Not all possible stock values are represented, the number of possibilities has to be kept reasonable. In this case the choices are even units, for an expensive stock they may be spaced even farther apart than this. The top of the chart says it's for June. It's actually the third Friday in the month, June 15th in this case. Thus these are bets on how the stock will move in the next 10 days. While the numbers are per share you can only trade options in lots of 100. The left side of the chart shows calls. Suppose you sell a call at 19 (the top of the chart) The last such trade would have gotten you a premium of 9.70 per share (the flip side of this is when the third friday rolls around it will most likely be exercised and they'll be paying you only 19 a share for a stock now trading at something over 26.) Note the volume, bid and ask columns though--you're not going to get 9.70 for such a call as there is no buyer. The most anybody is offering at present is 7.80 a share. Now, lets look farther down in the chart--say, a strike price of 30. The last trade was only .10--people think it's very unlikely that FB will rise above 30 to make this option worthwhile and thus you get very little for being willing to sell at that price. If FB stays at 26 the option will expire worthless and go away. If it's up to 31 when the 15th rolls around they'll exercise the option, take your shares and pay you 30 for them. Note that you already gave permission for the trade by selling the call, you can't back out later if it becomes a bad deal. Going over to the other side of the chart with the puts: Here the transaction goes the other way, come the 15th they have the option of selling you the shares for the strike price. Lets look at the same values we did before. 19? There's no trading, you can't do it. 30? Here you will collect 3.20 for selling the put. Come the 15th they have the right to sell you the stock for 30 a share. If it's still 26 they're certainly going to do so, but if it's up to 31 it's worthless and you pocket the 3.20 Note that you will normally not be allowed to sell a call if you don't own the shares in question. This is a safety measure as the risk in selling a call without the stock is infinite. If the stock somehow zoomed up to 10,000 when the 15th rolls around you would have to come up with the shares and the only way you could get them is buy them on the open market--you would have to come up with a million dollars. If there simply aren't enough shares available to cover the calls the result is catastrophic--whoever owns the shares simply gets to dictate terms to you. (And in the days of old this sometimes happened.)" }, { "docid": "311782", "title": "", "text": "If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting." }, { "docid": "537212", "title": "", "text": "Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position." }, { "docid": "99132", "title": "", "text": "If the stock starts to go down DO NOT SELL!! My reasoning for this is because, when you talk about the stock market, you haven't actually lost any money until you sell the stock. So if you sell it lower than you bought it, you loose money. BUT if you wait for the stock to go back up again, you will have made money." }, { "docid": "314478", "title": "", "text": "\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"" }, { "docid": "69487", "title": "", "text": "For the same reason you wanted it when you bought it. No-one guarantees that you'll be able to sell the stock you hold, and in fact many people get stuck with stocks they'd like to sell, but no-one is buying. But if investors think there's a profit potential that is not exhausted yet - they'll want to buy the stock." }, { "docid": "438190", "title": "", "text": "When a delisting happens, the primary process involves, the firm or the entity, trying to buy everyone out so that they can take the firm private by delisting from the stock exchanges. As the firm wants to buy everyone out, the current owners of the equity have the upper hand. They wouldn't want to sell if they believe the firm has a brighter future. So to compensate the existing holders, the buyer needs to compensate the current holders of any future loss, so they pay a premium to buy them out. Hence the prices offered will be more than the current existing price. And in anticipation of a premium the stocks price rises on this speculation. The other scenario is if the current holder(s) decide no to sell their holdings and are small in number, dependent on exchange regulations, and the buyer manages to de-list the stock, the holders might loose out i.e. they have to find another buyer who wants to buy which becomes difficult as the liquidity for the stock is very minimal. if any stock is DE-listed and then we can not trade on it, In India if the promoters capital is more than 90%, he can get the stock de-listed. There is a process, he has to make an open offer at specified price to minority shareholders. The minority shareholder can refuse to sell. Once the stock is de-listed, it means it cannot be traded on a given exchange. However you can still sell / buy by directly finding a buyer / seller and it's difficult compared to a listed stock." }, { "docid": "53047", "title": "", "text": "Obviously, you should not buy stock when the option is to pay down your debt. However, your question is different. Should you sell to reduce debt. That really depends on your personal situation. If you were planning to sell the stock anyway, go ahead and reduce your loans. Check out how the stock is doing and what the perspectives are. If the stock looks like it's going down, sell... Do you have savings? Unless you do, I should advise to sell the stock at any rate. If you do have savings, are they earning you more (in percentage) than your loans? If they are, keep them..." }, { "docid": "347521", "title": "", "text": "\"It's not either or. Much of the time the value of the stock has some tangible relation to the financial prospects of the company. The value of Ford and GM stock rose when they were selling a lot of cars, and collapsed when their cars became unpopular. Other companies (Enron for example) frankly 'cook the books' to make it appear they are prospering, when they are actually drowning in debt and non-performing assets. So called \"\"penny stocks\"\" have both low prices and low volumes and are susceptible to \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemes, where a manipulator buys a bunch of the stock, touts the stock to the world, pointing to the recent increase in price. They then sell out to all the new buyers, and the price collapses. If you are going to invest in the stock market it's up to you to figure out which companies are which.\"" }, { "docid": "36251", "title": "", "text": "\"To Many question and they are all treated differently. I was wondering how the logistics of interest and dividend payments are handled on assets , such as mortgages, bonds, stocks, What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? When the company decides to pay dividends, does it literally track down every single owner of that stock and deposit x cents per share in that person's bank account? (This sounds absolutely absurd and seems like it would be a logistical nightmare). In Stocks, the dividends are issued periodically. The dividend date is declared well in advance. As on end of the day on Dividend date, the list of individuals [or entities] who own the stock is available with the Stock-Exchange / Registrar of the companies. To this list the dividends are credited in next few days / weeks via banking channel. Most of this is automated. What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? On bonds, things work slightly differently. An Bond is initially issued for say 95 [discount of 5%] and payment of 100 after say 5 years. So when the person sells it after an year, he would logically look to get a price of 96. Of course there are other factors that could fetch him a price of 94.50 or 95.50. So every change in ownership factors in the logical rate of interest. The person who submits in on maturity gets 100. For the homeowner, I'm assuming he / she still makes mortgage payments to the initial bank they got the mortgage from, even if the bank no longer \"\"owns\"\" the mortgage. In this case, does the trader on the secondary market who owns the mortgage also come back to that bank to collect his interest payment? This depends on how the original financial institution sells the mortgage to new institutions. Generally the homeowner would keep paying initial financial institution and they would then take a margin and pay the secondary investor. If this was collateral-ized as Mortgage backed security, it is a very different story.\"" }, { "docid": "307008", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"" }, { "docid": "239998", "title": "", "text": "Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch." }, { "docid": "121886", "title": "", "text": "\"The price of a company's stock at any given moment is established by a ratio of buyers to sellers. When the sellers outnumber the buyers at a given price, the stock price drops until there are enough people willing to buy the stock to balance the equation again. When there are more people wanting to purchase a stock at a given price than people willing to sell it, the stock price rises until there are enough sellers to balance things again. So given this, it's easy to see that a very large fund (or collection of very large funds) buying or selling could drive the price of a stock in one direction or another (because the sheer number of shares they trade can tip the balance one way or another). What's important to keep in mind though is that the ratio of buyers to sellers at any given moment is determined by \"\"market sentiment\"\" and speculation. People selling a stock think the price is going down, and people buying it think it's going up; and these beliefs are strongly influenced by news coverage and available information relating to the company. So in the case of your company in the example that would be expected to triple in value in the next year; if everyone agreed that this was correct then the stock would triple almost instantly. The only reason the stock doesn't reach this value instantly is that the market is split between people thinking this is going to happen and people who think it won't. Over time, news coverage and new information will cause one side to appear more correct than the other and the balance will shift to drive the price up or down. All this is to say that YES, large funds and their movements CAN influence a stock's trading value; BUT their movements are based upon the same news, information, analysis and sentiment as the rest of the market. Meaning that the price of a stock is much more closely tied to news and available information than day to day trading volumes. In short, buying good companies at good prices is just as \"\"good\"\" as it's ever been. Also keep in mind that the fact that YOU can buy and sell stocks without having a huge impact on price is an ADVANTAGE that you have. By slipping in or out at the right times in major market movements you can do things that a massive investment fund simply cannot.\"" }, { "docid": "167322", "title": "", "text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "394454", "title": "", "text": "\"First a quick terminology correction: I believe you're proposing selling 10,000 shares of the stock of a company, not \"\"10,000 stocks\"\". When you sell, you need to decide whether you're selling for a specific minimum price or just selling for whatever price you can get. If you set a specific lower limit on asking price, then if people aren't interested at that price it doesn't sell. Which may mean you sell only a few shares, or none if your asking price isn't considered reasonable. If you want to sell independent of price, then as you begin to flood the market with your shares, the price you get per additional share may decline until it finds a buyer. What that lower limit is will depend on what people think the stock is currently worth. This is one of the many complications I don't want to deal with, which is why I stick with index funds.\"" }, { "docid": "333605", "title": "", "text": "\"After the initial public offering, the company can raise money by selling more stock (equity financing) or selling debt (e.g. borrowing money). If a company's stock price is high, they can raise money with equity financing on more favorable terms. When companies raise money with equity financing, they create new shares and dilute the existing shareholders, so the number of shares outstanding is not fixed. Companies can also return money to shareholders by buying their own equity, and this is called a share repurchase. It's best for companies to repurchase their shared when their stock price is low, but \"\"American companies have a terrible track record of buying their own shares high and selling them low.\"\" The management of a company typically likes a rising stock price, so their stock options are more valuable and they can justify bigger pay packages.\"" }, { "docid": "392481", "title": "", "text": "The Owners of stock keep changing with every Buy and Sell. Hence its theoritically possible that everyone makes or loses money. Say the price was $10 when everyone purchased the stock. If the stock is doing good and the markets are good, the stock will move up to $12. Everyone sells the stock to someone else. So all the Old owners have made $2. Now after some period of time, the stock / company is not doing so well, and the markets are bad, so the stock falls to $11, everyone sells. So all the current owners make a loss of $1. However in normal market conditions, there are Owners who have purchased stock at different price points and have held it irrespective of whether the price has gone above their purchase price or below their purchase price." } ]

[ { "docid": "351615", "title": "", "text": "Keep a diary, before buying write down why are you buying the stock, how long do you plan to keep it. Put down reasons when you would sell it. For example you buy a stock because it has lot of cash reserve, it is a focused company, good management. You would sell when management leaves or it starts to use its cash for acquisition that are not fitting in profile." } ]

[ { "docid": "314478", "title": "", "text": "\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"" }, { "docid": "220608", "title": "", "text": "\"Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form. I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock \"\"quadrupled\"\" in value over the next 52 weeks. Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions. Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF\"" }, { "docid": "94690", "title": "", "text": "The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt." }, { "docid": "330041", "title": "", "text": "\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "438190", "title": "", "text": "When a delisting happens, the primary process involves, the firm or the entity, trying to buy everyone out so that they can take the firm private by delisting from the stock exchanges. As the firm wants to buy everyone out, the current owners of the equity have the upper hand. They wouldn't want to sell if they believe the firm has a brighter future. So to compensate the existing holders, the buyer needs to compensate the current holders of any future loss, so they pay a premium to buy them out. Hence the prices offered will be more than the current existing price. And in anticipation of a premium the stocks price rises on this speculation. The other scenario is if the current holder(s) decide no to sell their holdings and are small in number, dependent on exchange regulations, and the buyer manages to de-list the stock, the holders might loose out i.e. they have to find another buyer who wants to buy which becomes difficult as the liquidity for the stock is very minimal. if any stock is DE-listed and then we can not trade on it, In India if the promoters capital is more than 90%, he can get the stock de-listed. There is a process, he has to make an open offer at specified price to minority shareholders. The minority shareholder can refuse to sell. Once the stock is de-listed, it means it cannot be traded on a given exchange. However you can still sell / buy by directly finding a buyer / seller and it's difficult compared to a listed stock." }, { "docid": "99132", "title": "", "text": "If the stock starts to go down DO NOT SELL!! My reasoning for this is because, when you talk about the stock market, you haven't actually lost any money until you sell the stock. So if you sell it lower than you bought it, you loose money. BUT if you wait for the stock to go back up again, you will have made money." }, { "docid": "539680", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation. However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term. However, on its way up, it has ups and downs. If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up. When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income. (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.) If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to \"\"sell low,\"\" losing a significant portion of your investment. Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines. If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks. It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market. On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much.\"" }, { "docid": "537212", "title": "", "text": "Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position." }, { "docid": "335631", "title": "", "text": "Oh, I see what you mean. It depends which side you look at it from: the company, or the individual investor. For the individual investor, I guess it doesn't matter. As you said, you only buy the amount of stocks you can afford. What matters afterwards is whether the price of your stocks goes up or down. That's when the company valuation comes into play. If a company is overvalued, the stock prices are going to go down until they reach the [equilibrium point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium). Or, rephrasing, stocks go down when more people will want to sell than buy, creating an excess supply, so sellers will be willing to offer lower prices so you buy from them. Stocks go up when the opposite happens, more people will want to buy than sell, so buyers will have to offer more money to convince sellers to sell. In essence, Facebook was overvalued, and not enough people were buying their shares, creating excess supply, so, sellers had to offer lower prices. Had Facebook been properly valued, people would've felt the stocks were a good price, everyone would've rushed to purchase, and stock prices would've gone up." }, { "docid": "36251", "title": "", "text": "\"To Many question and they are all treated differently. I was wondering how the logistics of interest and dividend payments are handled on assets , such as mortgages, bonds, stocks, What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? When the company decides to pay dividends, does it literally track down every single owner of that stock and deposit x cents per share in that person's bank account? (This sounds absolutely absurd and seems like it would be a logistical nightmare). In Stocks, the dividends are issued periodically. The dividend date is declared well in advance. As on end of the day on Dividend date, the list of individuals [or entities] who own the stock is available with the Stock-Exchange / Registrar of the companies. To this list the dividends are credited in next few days / weeks via banking channel. Most of this is automated. What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? On bonds, things work slightly differently. An Bond is initially issued for say 95 [discount of 5%] and payment of 100 after say 5 years. So when the person sells it after an year, he would logically look to get a price of 96. Of course there are other factors that could fetch him a price of 94.50 or 95.50. So every change in ownership factors in the logical rate of interest. The person who submits in on maturity gets 100. For the homeowner, I'm assuming he / she still makes mortgage payments to the initial bank they got the mortgage from, even if the bank no longer \"\"owns\"\" the mortgage. In this case, does the trader on the secondary market who owns the mortgage also come back to that bank to collect his interest payment? This depends on how the original financial institution sells the mortgage to new institutions. Generally the homeowner would keep paying initial financial institution and they would then take a margin and pay the secondary investor. If this was collateral-ized as Mortgage backed security, it is a very different story.\"" }, { "docid": "449280", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as \"\"sell to open\"\" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are. As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price.\"" }, { "docid": "167322", "title": "", "text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "273565", "title": "", "text": "Try to find out (online) what 'the experts' think about your stock. Normally, there are some that advise you to sell, some to hold and some to buy. Hold on to your stock when most advise you to buy, otherwise, just sell it and get it over with. A stock's estimated value depends on a lot of things, the worst of these are human emotions... People buy with the crowd and sell on panic. Not something you should want to do. The 'real' value of a stock depends on assets, cash-flow, backlog, benefits, dividends, etc. Also, their competitors, the market position they have, etc. So, once you have an estimate of how much the stock is 'worth', then you can buy or sell according to the market value. Beware of putting all your eggs in one basket. Look at what happened to Arthur Andersen, Lehman Brothers, Parmalat, Worldcom, Enron, etc." }, { "docid": "307008", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"" }, { "docid": "432404", "title": "", "text": "Rebalance is across asset-classes which are mutually independent [like stocks and bonds; they may be inversely correlated at times as when stocks go down, bonds go up] 80%-20% (stock-bond) split is good for a young investor [say in 30s, some suggest 110-age as a good stock allocation percentage]. Here rebalance is done when say the asset-allocation(AA) strays away more than say 3 to 5% (again just a rule of thumb). E.g. if due to a recent run-up in stocks, AA could become 85%-15%. Then you sell stocks to buy bonds to make the AA 80%-20% And since this method always sells the winner -- you automatically make gains [selling high and buying low] S&P 500 index gives decent diversification within stocks; you want a total-bond-fund to take care of the bond side of your AA." }, { "docid": "428017", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the first misconception to clear up is that you are implying the price of a stock is set by a specific person. It is not. The price of a stock is equal to the value that someone most recently traded at. If Apple last traded at $100/share, then Apple shares are worth $100. If good news about Apple hits the market and people holding the shares ask for more money, and the most recent trade becomes $105, then that is now what Apple shares are worth. Remember that generally speaking, the company itself does not sell you its shares - instead, some other investor sells you shares they already own. When a company sells you shares, it is called a 'public offering'. To get to your actual question, saying something is 'priced in' implies that the 'market' (that is, investors who are buying and selling shares in the company) has already considered the impacts of that something. For example, if you open up your newspaper and read an article about IBM inventing a new type of computer chip, you might want to invest in IBM. But, the rest of the market has also heard the news. So everyone else has already traded IBM assuming that this new chip would be made. That means when you buy, even if sales later go up because of the new chip, those sales were already considered by the person who chose the price to sell you the shares at. One principle of the stock market (not agreed to by all) is called market efficiency. Generally, if there were perfect market efficiency, then every piece of public information about a company would be perfectly integrated into its stock price. In such a scenario, the only way to get real value when buying a company would be to have secret information of some sort. It would mean that everyone's collective best-guess about what will happen to the company has been \"\"priced-in\"\" to the most recent share trade.\"" }, { "docid": "303724", "title": "", "text": "\"In my view, it's better to sell when there's a reason to sell, rather than to cap your gains at 8%. I'm assuming you have no such criteria on the other side - i.e. hold your losses down to 8%. That's because what matters is how much you make overall in your portfolio, not how much you make per trade. Example: if you own three stocks, equal amounts - and two go up 20% but one falls 20%. If you sell your gains at 8%, and hold the loser, you have net LOST money. So when do you actually sell? You might say a \"\"fall of 10%\"\" from the last high is good enough to sell. This is called a \"\"trailing\"\" stop, which means if a stock goes from 100 to 120, I'll still hold and sell if it retraces to 108. Needless to say if it had gone from 100 to 90, I would still be out. The idea is to ride the trend for as long as you can, because trends are strong. And keep your trailing stops wide enough for it to absorb natural jiggles, because you may get stopped out of a stock that falls 4% but eventually goes up 200%. Or sell under other conditions: if the earnings show a distinct drop, or the sector falls out of favor. Whenever you decide to sell, also consider what it would take for you to buy the stock back - increased earnings, strong prices, a product release, whatever. Because getting out might seem like a good thing, but it's just as important to not think of it as saying a stock is crappy - it might just be that you had enough of one ride. That doesn't mean you can't come back for another one.\"" }, { "docid": "480967", "title": "", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "340607", "title": "", "text": "\"The \"\"price\"\" is the price of the last transaction that actually took place. According to Motley Fool wiki: A stock price is determined by what was last paid for it. During market hours (usually weekdays from 9:30AM-4:00PM eastern), a heavily traded issue will see its price change several times per second. A stock's price is, for many purposes, considered unchanged outside of market hours. Roughly speaking, a transaction is executed when an offer to buy matches an offer to sell. These offers are listed in the Order Book for a stock (Example: GOOG at Yahoo Finance). This is actively updated during trading hours. This lists all the currently active buy (\"\"bid\"\") and sell (\"\"ask\"\") orders for a stock, and looks like this: You'll notice that the stock price (again, the last sale price) will (usually*) be between the highest bid and the lowest ask price. * Exception: When all the buy or sell prices have moved down or up, but no trades have executed yet.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "32811", "title": "", "text": "\"No. A deposit to an IRA must be in cash. A conversion from traditional IRA to Roth can be \"\"in kind\"\" i.e. As a stock transfer. Last, any withdrawals can also be in stock or funds. IRS Publication 590, so important, it's now in 2 sections Part A and Part B, addresses IRA issues such as this as well as most others. By the way - now on page 7 - \"\"Contributions, except for rollover contributions, must be in cash.\"\"\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "353337", "title": "", "text": "\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \"\"advisor\"\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \"\"capital gains\"\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \"\"expense ratio\"\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\"" }, { "docid": "347651", "title": "", "text": "You are young, and therefore have a very long time horizon for investing. Absolutely nothing you do should involve paying any attention to your investments more than once a year (if that). First off, you can only deposit money in an IRA (of whatever kind) if you have taxable income. If you don't, you can still invest, just without the tax benefits of a Roth. My suggestion would be to open an account with a discount brokerage (Schwab, Fidelity, eTrade, etc). The advantage of a brokerage IRA is that you can invest in whatever you want within the account. Then, either buy an S&P 500 or total market index fund within the account, or buy an index-based ETF (like a mutual fund, but trades like a stock). The latter might be better, since many mutual funds have minimum limits, which ETFs do not. Set the account up to reinvest the dividends automatically--S&P 500 yields will far outstrip current savings account yields--and sit back and do nothing for the next 40 or 50 years. Well, except for continuing to make annual contributions to the account, which you should continue to invest in pretty much the same thing until you have enough money (and experience and knowledge) to diversify into bond funds/international funds/individual stocks, etc. Disclaimer: I am not a financial planner. I just manage my own money, and this strategy has mostly kept me from stressing too badly over the last few years of market turmoil." }, { "docid": "272458", "title": "", "text": "\"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"" }, { "docid": "387338", "title": "", "text": "With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k." }, { "docid": "527010", "title": "", "text": "\"the deadline for roth conversions is december 31st. more precisely, roth conversions are considered to have happened in the tax year the distribution was taken. this creates a kind of loop hole for people who do an ira rollover (not a trustee-to-trustee transfer). technically, you can take money out of your traditional ira on december 31st and hold it for 60 days before deciding to roll it over into either another traditional ira or a roth ira. if you decide to put it in another traditional account, it is not a taxable event. but if you decide to put it in a roth account, the \"\"conversion\"\" is considered to have happened in december. unfortunately non-trustee rollovers are tricky. for one, the source trustee will probably take withholding that you will have to make up with non-ira funds. and rollovers are limitted to a certain number per year. also, if you miss the 60-day deadline, you will have to pay an early-withdrawal penalty (with some exceptions). if you really want to push the envelope, you could try to do this with a 60-day-rule extension, but i wouldn't try it. source: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590a/ch01.html oddly, recharacterizations (basically reverse roth conversions) have a deadline of october 15th of the year after the original roth conversion it is reversing. so, you could do the conversion in december, then you have up to 10 months to change your mind and \"\"undo\"\" the conversion with a \"\"recharacterization\"\". again, this is tricky business. at the very least, you should be aware that the tax calculations for recharacterization are different if you convert the funds into a new empty roth account vs an existing roth account with a previous balance. honestly, if you want to get into the recharacterization business, you can probably save more on taxes by converting in january before 20-month stock market climb rather than simply converting in the year your tax brackets are low. that is the typical recharacterization strategy. source: https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-IRAs-Recharacterization-of-Roth-Rollovers-and-Conversions\"" }, { "docid": "546150", "title": "", "text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!" }, { "docid": "396066", "title": "", "text": "Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored." }, { "docid": "61022", "title": "", "text": "\"From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for \"\"backdoor\"\" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire \"\"backdoor\"\" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the \"\"backdoor\"\" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets.\"" }, { "docid": "76530", "title": "", "text": "\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"" }, { "docid": "280530", "title": "", "text": "Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money." }, { "docid": "434734", "title": "", "text": "I assume that with both companies you can buy stock mutual funds, bonds mutual funds, ETFs and money market accounts. They should both offer all of these as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts. You need to make sure they offer the types of investments you want. Most 401K or 403b plans only offer a handful of options, but for non-company sponsored plans you want to have many more choices. To look at the costs see how much they charge you when you buy or sell shares. Also look at the annual expenses for those funds. Each company website should show you all the fees for each fund. Take a few funds that you are likely to invest in, and have a match in the other fund family, and compare. The benefit of the retirement accounts is that if you make a less than perfect choice now, it is easy to move the money within the family of funds or even to another family of funds later. The roll over or transfer doesn't involve taxes." }, { "docid": "149367", "title": "", "text": "\"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \"\"a few hundred\"\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \"\"a few hundred\"\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \"\"a few hundred\"\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\"" }, { "docid": "561123", "title": "", "text": "\"While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that \"\"regular\"\" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "279782", "title": "", "text": "\"Usually insiders are in a better position than you to understand their business, but that doesn't mean they will know the future with perfect accuracy. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes life events force them to liquidate an otherwise promising investment, sometimes their minds change. So while it is indeed valuable information, as everything in fundamental analysis it must be taken with a grain of salt. Automatic Sell I think these refer to how the sell occurred. Often the employees don't get actual shares but options or warrants that can be converted to shares. Or there may be special predetermined arrangements regarding when and how the shares may be traded. Since the decision to sell here has nothing to do with the prospects of the business, but has to do with the personal situation of the employee, it's not quite the same as outright selling due to market concerns. Some people, for instance, are not interested in holding stock. Part of their compensation is given in stock, so they immediately sell the stock to avoid the headache of watching an investment. This obviously doesn't indicate that they expect the company will go south. I think automatic sell refers to these sorts of situations, but your broker should provide a more detailed definition. Disposition (Non Open Market) These days people trade through a broker, but there's nothing stopping you from taking the physical shares and giving them to someone in exchange for say a stack of cash. With a broker, you only \"\"sell\"\" without considering who is buying. The broker then finds buyers for you according to their own system. If selling without a broker you can also be choosy with who is buying, and it's not like anybody can just call up the CEO and ask to buy some stock, so it's a non-open market. Ultimately though it's still the insider selling. Just on a different exchange. So I would treat this as any insider sell - if they are selling, they may be expecting the stock to become less valuable. indirect ownership I think this refers to owning an entity that in turn owns the asset. For instance CEO of XYZ owns stock in ACME, but ACME holds shares of XYZ. This is a somewhat complicated situation, it comes down to whether you think they sold ACME because of the exposure to XYZ or because of some other risk that applies only to ACME and not XYZ. Generally speaking, I don't think you would find a rule like \"\"if insider transactions of so and so kinds > X then buy\"\" that provides guaranteed success. If such a rule was possible it would have been exploited already by the professionals. The more sensible option is to consider all data available to you and try to make a holistic evaluation. All of these insider activities can be bullish or bearish depending on many other factors.\"" }, { "docid": "325566", "title": "", "text": "\"Is investing a good idea with a low amount of money? Yes. I'll take the angle that you CAN invest in penny stocks. There's nothing wrong with that. The (oversimplified) suggestion I would make is to answer the question about your risk aversion. This is the four quadrant (e.g., http://njaes.rutgers.edu:8080/money/riskquiz/) you are introduced to when you first sit down to open your brokerage (stocks) or employer retirement account (401K). Along with a release of liability in the language of \"\"past performance is not an indicator...\"\" (which you will not truly understand until you experience a market crash). The reason I say this is because if you are 100% risk averse, then it is clear which vehicles you want to have in your tool belt; t-bills, CDs, money market, and plain vanilla savings. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. Don't let anyone make you feel otherwise with remarks like \"\"your money is not working for you sitting there\"\". It's extremely important to be absolutely honest with yourself in doing this assessment, too. For example, I thought I was a risk taker except when the market tumbled, I reacted exactly how a knee-jerk investor would. Also, I feel it's not easy to know just how honest you are with yourself as we are humans, and not impartial machines. So the recommendation I would give is to make a strong correlation to casino gambling. In other words, conventional advice is to only take \"\"play money\"\" to the casino. This because you assume you WILL lose it. Then you can enjoy yourself at the casino knowing this is capital that you are okay throwing in the trash. I would strongly caution you to only ever invest capital in the stock market that you characterize as play money. I'm convinced financial advisors, fund managers, friends will disagree. Still, I feel this is the only way you will be completely okay when the market fluctuates -- you won't lose sleep. IF you choose this approach, then you can start investing any time. That five drachma you were going to throw away on lottery tickets? transfer it into your Roth IRA. That twenty yen that you were going to ante in your weekly poker night? transfer it into your index fund. You already got past the investors remorse of (losing) that money. IF you truly accept that amount as play money, then you CAN put it into penny stocks. I'll get lots of criticism here. However, I maintain that once you are truly okay with throwing that cash away (like you would drop it into a slot machine), then it's the same whether you lose it one way or in another investment vehicle.\"" }, { "docid": "481793", "title": "", "text": "I moved from contributing 10% to maxing as my salary rose over the course of three years after graduation. Because of my raises, my monthly take home still increased, so it was a pretty painless way to increase my 401(k) contribution and also avoid lifestyle inflation. That said, I would not do it if you have any credit card debt, school loans, or an auto loan. Pay that off first. Then work on maxing the 401(k). Personally I rate owning a home behind that, but that's partially because I'm in an area where the rent ratios are barely on the side of buying, so I don't find buying to be a pressing matter. One thing to investigate is if your company offers a Roth 401(k) option. It's a nice option where you can go Roth without worrying about income limits. My personal experience does not include a Roth IRA because when I still qualified for one I didn't know much about them, and now that I know about them I have the happy issue of not qualifying." }, { "docid": "305855", "title": "", "text": "I think you're missing several key issues here. First for the facts: IRA contributions are $5500 a year maximum (currently, it changes with inflation), i.e.: you cannot deposit $10K in an IRA account in a single year. IRA withdrawals can only be made if you have something liquid in the IRA. You cannot withdraw from Lending Club IRA unless you manage to sell the notes currently held by you there. Roth IRA is funded with after-tax money, and you can withdraw your deposits in Roth IRA any time for any reason. No 10K limit there, only limited by what you deposited. However the main thing you're missing is this: You can withdraw up to $10K from your IRA for first home purchase without penalty. Pay attention: not without tax but without penalty. So what is the point in depositing $10k into IRA just to withdraw it the next year?" }, { "docid": "534290", "title": "", "text": "Trusts are a way of holding assets with a specific goal in mind. At its simplest, a trust can be used to avoid probate, a sometimes lengthy process in which a will is made public along with the assets bequeathed. A trust allows for fast transfer and no public disclosure. Depending on the current estate tax laws (the death tax) a trust can help preserve an estate exemption. e.g. Say the law reverts back to a $1M exemption. Note, this is $1M per deceased person, not per beneficiary. My wife and I happened to have assets of exactly $2M, and I die tomorrow. Now she has $2M, and when she passes, the estate has that $2M and estate taxes are based on this total, $1M fully taxed. But - If we set up trusts, that first million can be put into trust on my death, the interest and some principal going to the surviving spouse each year, but staying out of the survivor's estate. Second spouse dies, little or no tax due. This is known as a bypass trust. Another example is a spendthrift trust. Say, hypothetically, my sister in law can't save a nickel to save her life. Spends every dime and then some. So the best thing my mother in law can do to provide for her is to leave her estate in trust with specific instructions on how to distribute some percent each year. This is not a tax dodge of any kind, it's strictly to protect the daughter from her own irresponsibility. A medical needs trust is a variant of the above. It can provide income to a disabled person without impacting their government benefits adversely. This scratches the surface, illustrating how trusts can be used, there are more variation on this, but I believe it covers the basics. With the interest in this topic, I'm adding another issue where the trust can be useful. In my article On my Death, Please, Take a Breath I described how an inherited IRA was destroyed by ignorance. The beneficiary, fearing the stock market, withdrew it all and was nailed by taxes. He was on social security and no other income, so by taking small withdrawals each year would have had nearly no tax due. (and could have avoided 'market' risk by selling within the IRA and buying treasuries or CDs.) He didn't need a trust of course, just education. The deceased, his sister, might have used a Trust to manage the IRA and enforce limited withdrawals. Mixing IRAs and trust is complex, but the choice between a $2000 expense to create a trust or the $40K tax bill he got is pretty clear to me. He took pride in having sold out as the market soon tanked, but he could have avoided the tax loss as well. He was confusing the account (In this case an IRA, but it could have been a 401(k) or other retirement account) with the investments it contained. One can, and should, keep the IRA in tact, and simply adjust the allocation according to one's comfort level. Note - Inheritance tax laws change frequently, and my answer above was an attempt to be generic. The current (2014) code allows $5.34M to be left by one decedent with no estate tax." }, { "docid": "94496", "title": "", "text": "First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account." } ]

[ { "docid": "270573", "title": "", "text": "What is cheap? A stock may fall from $20 per share to $10 per share, but it may have gone from making a $100M profit last year to a $100M loss this year. So now at $10 per share it may still be considered expensive. You need to be very careful when to consider that a stock is cheap or not, you'll have to look at more than just the share price." } ]

[ { "docid": "249006", "title": "", "text": "\"This summer I used a loan from my 401(k) to help pay for the down payment of a new house. We planned on selling a Condo a few months later, so we only needed the loan for a short period but wanted to keep monthly payments low since we would be paying two mortgages for a few months. I also felt like the market might take a dip in the future, so I liked the idea of trying to cash out high and buy back low (spoiler alert: this didn't happen). So in July 2017 I withdrew $17,000 from my account (Technically $16,850.00 principal and $150 processing fee) at an effective 4.19% APR (4% rate and then the fee), with 240 scheduled payments of $86.00 (2 per month for 10 years). Over the lifetime of the loan the total finance charge was $3,790, but that money would be paid back into my account. I was happy with the terms, and it helped tide things over until the condo was sold a few months later. But then I decided to change jobs, and ended up having to pay back the loan ~20 weeks after it was issued (using the proceeds from the sale of the condo). During this time the market had done well, so when I paid back the funds the net difference in shares that I now owned (including shares purchased with the interest payments) was $538.25 less than today's value of the original count of shares that were sold to fund the loan. Combined with the $150 fee, the overall \"\"cost\"\" of the 20 week loan was about 4.05%. That isn't the interest rate (interest was paid back to my account balance), but the value lost due to the principal having been withdrawn. On paper, my account would be worth that much more if I hadn't withdrawn the money. Now if you extrapolate the current market return into 52 weeks, you can think of that loan having an APR \"\"cost\"\" of around 10.5% (Probably not valid for a multi year calculation, but seems accurate for a 12 month projection). Again, that is not interest paid back to the account, but instead the value lost due to the money not being in the account. Sure, the market could take a dip and I may be able to buy the shares back at a reduced cost, but that would require keeping sizable liquid assets around and trying to time the market. It also is not something you can really schedule very well, as the loan took 6 days to fund (not including another week of clarifying questions back/forth before that) and 10 day to repay (from the time I initiated the paperwork to when the check was cashed and shares repurchased). So in my experience, the true cost of the loan greatly depends on how the market does, and if you have the ability to pay back the loan it probably is worth doing so. Especially since you may be forced to do so at any time if you change jobs or your employment is terminated.\"" }, { "docid": "548870", "title": "", "text": "This becomes a problem of infinite regression. A person is *lucky* if they have non-abusive parents. A person is *lucky* if they don't get into a car accident at 17. A person is *lucky* if they are born in the United States versus the third world. A person is *lucky* to be born in the 21st century versus the 8th century. A person is *lucky* to exist at all. Luck is undoubtedly an important factor in success. It has to be. But how are we interpreting luck? Is luck just another word for things beyond our individual control? Just for complete randomness? I don't think anyone would argue that luck isn't important. However, we can't have that mean that people who succeed don't deserve their success. One person might start a cupcake bakery and be extremely successful. Another person might work just as hard at their bakery and fail. The former person could have had a better location, better name, better advertising - hell they could just be a better baker period. The point is that as long as that success is earned through individuals rewarding your value - there should be no problem with *luck* being a factor. The only time luck should be an issue is when a person is *lucky* to know the right political connections so they earn their income through political opportunism rather than market forces. The randomness of luck is actually what makes it fair - nobody truly controls it. It emerges based on the actual wants and actions of other individuals either buying your products, patronizing your store, or paying your wages." }, { "docid": "588029", "title": "", "text": "\"Let's pretend that the author of that article is not selling anything and is trying to help you succeed in life. I have nothing against sales, but that author is throwing out a lot of nonsense to sell his stuff and is creating a state of urgency so that people adopt this mindset. It's clever and it obviously works. From a pure time perspective, most people won't make enough money to run their own business and be as profitable as if they worked for a company. This is a reality that few want to acknowledge. If you invested in yourself and your career with the same discipline and urgency as an entrepreneur, most people would be better off at a company when you consider the benefits and the fact that employees have a full 7.5% of social security paid by their employer (entrepreneurs see the full 15% while employees don't). Why do I start here, because this author isn't telling you that the more people take his advice, the more their earnings will regress to the mean or below. In fact, most of my entrepreneur friends have to go back to work when their reality fails after they burn through their savings. 401ks are not a perfect system, but there are more 401k millionaires now than ever before this, and people who give the author's advice are always looking to avoid doing what they need to do - save for retirement. Most people I know sadly realize this in their 50s, when it's too late, and start trying to \"\"catch up.\"\" I don't blame the author for this, as he knows his article will appeal to younger people who don't have the wisdom to see that his advice hasn't been great for most. The reality is that for most people 401ks will provide tax advantaged savings that you can use when you're older; taxes will eat at your earnings, so these accounts really help. Finally, look at the article again especially the part you quote. He says inflation will carve out what you save, yet inflation is less than 2%. Where is he getting this from? In the past decade, we've seen numerous deflationary spirals and the market overall has come back from the fall in 2009. Again, this isn't \"\"good enough\"\" for this author, so buy his stuff to learn how to succeed! There have been numerous decades (50s,70s) that were much worse for investors than this past one.\"" }, { "docid": "33441", "title": "", "text": "I've seen my score dip a little bit after every hard pull. (Admittedly, a fako score.) You apply for credit or for a credit increase and your score is going to dip. Any check that is not intended to grant credit (either an existing creditor rechecking, or when you check your own credit) has no effect on your score. Likewise, a check done to screen for a solicitation have no effect as you are not trying to borrow. (Taking them up on the offer will normally cause a hit, though.)" }, { "docid": "372551", "title": "", "text": "Try using technical analysis, look at the charts and look for stocks that are uptrending. The dfinition of an uptrend being higher highs and higher lows. Use a stochastic indicator and buy on the dips down when the stochastic is in the oversold position (below 20) and and crossing over about to turn back upwards. Or you can also use the stochastic to trade shares that have been ranging between two prices (say between $10 and $12) for a while. As the price approaches the $10 support and the stochastic is in oversold, you would buy as the price rebounds off the $10 support and the stochastic crosses and starts rebounding back up. As the price starts reaching the resistance at $12 (with stocastic in overbought at above 80) you would look to sell and take profits. If you were able to do short selling in the competition, you could short sell at this point in time and make profits on the way up as well as on the way down. There are many more techniques you could use to set up trade opportunities using technical analysis, so it may be a subject you could research further before the comptition begins. Good luck." }, { "docid": "16175", "title": "", "text": "\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \"\"sell high buy low\"\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\"" }, { "docid": "115364", "title": "", "text": "So real estate isn't a good investment? Yeah, it's went down at times. Still worth more now then say 15, 25 and 50 years ago right? Is nothing a good investment because it has bad years? Im not saying bitcoin is the best shit ever and it's perfect and everyone should buy it. But we've heard time and time again that it was in its death throws. Yet after every dip, it recovers and reaches new highs." }, { "docid": "255491", "title": "", "text": "\"Because \"\"my accountant said I'm in the 28% bracket and need more write-offs.\"\" When I hear someone say this I tell them to get a new accountant/advisor/tax guy. The benefit, if any, is the fact that if, and only if, (a hat tip to @staticx) you are already itemizing your deductions. It means that for me, my 3.5% mortgage is really costing me 2.625%. The only effect of this is the when I line up my debts, the mortgage might fall to a lower priority for payback. This is where there's a balance between the choice of a robust emergency fund, earning close to 0% today, or using those funds to pay the mortgage at an accelerated rate. If the sentiment expressed by the question implies that one should carry a mortgage, needed or not, it really comes down the a question of risk over the long term. I don't suggest that people take a mortgage today to invest in the market. A zero return as we just saw in the '00s will show you that the 10% market return is an average over the very long term. FWIW, the '96-'05 period returned 9.08%, and '06-'13 (2 years short of the 10) 7.26%. Few have the discipline to patiently wait out the dips and see the returns I quoted. That said, the fact that the interest is deductible is a small factor given the low rates we are currently enjoying. Each of the points above can be expanded into its own answer. A great question with not-so-simple answers.\"" }, { "docid": "571203", "title": "", "text": "Companies are expected to make a profit, otherwise there is no point to their existence and no motivation for investment. That profit comes back to shareholders as growth and/or dividend. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to turn back into investment to facilitate increased future earnings, it increases shareholder equity and share price. If a company is doing well and has a healthy profit to pay out in dividend, it makes the shares more attractive to investors which pushes the price up. Either way, shares go up. Share prices drop when companies lose money, or there are market disturbances affecting all companies (recessions), or when individual companies fail. Averaged over all companies over the long term (decades), stocks can be reasonably expected to go up." }, { "docid": "139368", "title": "", "text": "Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes." }, { "docid": "507029", "title": "", "text": "In general people make a few key mistakes with property: 1) Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well. 2) Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth. 3) Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. 4) Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. 5) Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. 6) Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20yr+ contracts/activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential – particularly in fast moving jobs like software development. Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close, it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds." }, { "docid": "185809", "title": "", "text": "The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. Whilst a bottom fisher would wait until a break in the downtrend line and buy after confirmation of a higher high (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles and your appetite for risk." }, { "docid": "572622", "title": "", "text": "If your stock is rising and you want to buy on a dip, the best way to do this is by looking at the chart and incorporating simple Technical Analysis techniques. Firstly, an uptrend is defined as a price chart with higher highs and higher lowers. If you get a lower high or a lower low (or both), it could be the end of the uptrend - be cautious. This can be seen on the chart below with an uptrend line drawn. If you draw a trend line you can wait for the price to approach the trend line, bounce off it and start moving up again to buy your stock on a dip. If instead the price closes below the trend line, be very cautious - this could be the end of the uptrend and the start of a downtrend - no telling how low the price will go. If this is the case you can then draw a downtrend line and wait for the price to close above the downtrend line before making your purchase." }, { "docid": "246114", "title": "", "text": "Before anything else, pay down any debt at higher interest rates. Best guaranteed return on investment you can get. What do you plan to use the money for, when, with how much advance planning? How risk-tolerant are you, and how patient are you ? Would you see a dip in an asset's value as lost money or a buying opportunity? A good financial advisor -- and I mean one who is ONLY an advisor and not trying to sell you anything but their services -- can take answers of that sort and recommend a mix of investment types that will suit your needs. Knowing that balance, you can the pick specific investments to suit. (I remain a fan of low-fee index funds as a painless way to get good diversification, with some small percentage for more active trading if you really want to invest the effort and are convinced you can beat the odds.) Other answers here on the personal finance discussion go into this in detail, so I don't think it's worth repeating here unless there's something really unusual about your situation." }, { "docid": "123779", "title": "", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-defense-of-the-dismal-science-1503679118) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; In a recent essay, Ricardo Reis, an economist at the London School of Economics, argues that failing to foretell a financial crash is no more an indictment of economics than failing to predict when a patient will die is an indictment of medicine. &gt; Economists didn&amp;#039;t predict the financial crisis, Prof. Reis notes, but they did help to arrest it by applying theory and experience: &amp;quot;The economy did not die, and a Great Depression was avoided, in no small part due to the advances of economics over many decades.\"\" &gt; Economists ask: Will it change employers&amp;#039; demand for workers who earn the minimum wage? Or what they pay workers who earn just above the minimum? Or the prices they charge, or how much market share they lose to companies that don&amp;#039;t face the higher minimum or how much they invest in automation? Does it reduce turnover and thus make workers more productive? ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6x2mby/in_defense_of_the_dismal_science_full_article/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~201507 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*: **economist**^#1 **economic**^#2 **work**^#3 **More**^#4 **economy**^#5\"" }, { "docid": "315255", "title": "", "text": "\"You are not interpreting the table correctly. The $20K \"\"base rate\"\" that you think should have been eliminated is in fact the total tax for the whole bracket. You only dipped partially into the bracket, and the $3K reduction accounts for that. Look at the table again: What it means is that if you earn $100K, you will pay $6897.50 + 25% of (100000-50400) = $12400. If you earn $140000, you'll pay $26835 + (140000-130150) * 0.28 = $2758. So why the difference between $26835 and $6897.50? That's exactly 25% of $79500, which is the difference between $130150 and $50400 - the whole value of the bracket.\"" }, { "docid": "499189", "title": "", "text": "In theory the integration of taxes make the tax implications of paying salary or dividends equal. This is what happens when you calculate the taxes using a generic tax calculator, however, the theory breaks down in certain cases. If you are earning less than $100k there is very little difference and paying out a salary is usually the better option. In a large stable company the most efficient option is almost always a mix of both. If you are earning more than $100k a year it depends on a number of factors: 1) Are your companies annual earnings over $500,000? In Canada, private companies that earn more than $500,000 annually are taxed at a higher rate than those earning less than $500,000. If the earnings are above $500,000 generally you should reduce the earning to under $500,000 by paying a salary. However, this depends on the province, the other income of the owners are and how much more than $500,000 your company earns. 2) Are you eligible for deductions or benefits only available on earned income? Earned income is income that you have worked for, which does not include dividends. RRSP contribution room, child care expense deductions, CPP, and many other benefits under the CRA rules are only available to people who have an earned income. It is worth taking advantage of these deductions when they are available. 3) Is your company eligible for any tax deductions? The same as with your personal tax deductions and your personal benefits of earning income, having a corporate income is also a benefit. There are a number of tax credits and tax deductions that corporations can take advantage of and when available these should be taken advantage of before paying everything out in salary. Once all these questions are answered the calculation is based on your marginal tax rate and the tax rate of the Corporation. One other reason to have at least a portion of you salary as a dividend is that if you incur capital loss in your corporation you can pass them to your personal taxes. If you were payed 100% in salary this does not work. Other strategies to be more tax efficient: Income splitting (Pay a salary/dividend to yourself, your wife, your children your parents, or anyone you support). Rolling-over property with taxable gains into your private corporation. Buying insurance policies that gives a return of premium or increase your Capital Dividend Account (CDA)." }, { "docid": "167896", "title": "", "text": "If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal! However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen. This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income. The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed). Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400. A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service. So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month. Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service. This is suspiciously like 2K per year. Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest. For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs. So you have two ways to profit: rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income. What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay? What happens if you have greater than expected repairs? What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment? Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks. If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment. Where does the money come from? Your pocket. At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more. Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership." }, { "docid": "76776", "title": "", "text": "\"A junk bond is, broadly, a bond with a non-negligible risk of default. (\"\"Bond\"\" ought to be defined elsewhere, but broadly it's a financial instrument you buy from a company or government, where they promise to pay you back the principal and some interest over time, on a particular schedule.) The name \"\"junk\"\" is a bit exaggerated: many of them are issued by respectable and reasonably stable businesses. junk bonds were required to do large leveraged buyouts. This means: the company issued fairly risky, fairly high-yield debt, to buy out equity holders. They have to pay a high rate on the debt because the company's now fairly highly geared (ie has a lot of debt relative to its value) and it may have to pay out a large fraction of its earnings as interest. What is a junk bond and how does it differ from a regular bond? It's only a matter of degree and nomenclature. A bond that has a credit rating below a particular level (eg S&P BBB-) is called junk, or more politely \"\"non-investment grade\"\" or \"\"speculative\"\". It's possible for an existing bond to be reclassified from one side to another, or for a single issuer to have different series some of which are more risky than others. The higher the perceived risk, the more interest the bond must pay offer in order to attract lenders. Why is there higher risk/chance of default? Well, why would a company be considered at higher risk of failing to repay its debt? Basically it comes down to doubt about the company's future earnings being sufficient to repay its debt, which could be for example:\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "416307", "title": "", "text": "\"Can anyone explain what each of them mean and how they're different from each other? When you \"\"buy to open\"\", you are purchasing an option and opening a new position. When you \"\"sell to open\"\", you are creating a brand new options contract and selling it. \"\"Covered\"\" means that you have assets in your account to satisfy the terms of the options contract. A \"\"covered call\"\" is a call option for which you own shares of the underlying stock that you will sell to the buyer at the option's strike price if he exercises the option. If you previously made a \"\"sell to open\"\" trade to create a new position, and you want to close the position, you can buy back the option. If you previously made a \"\"buy to open\"\" trade, you can \"\"sell to close\"\" which will sell back your option and close your position. In summary:\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "361163", "title": "", "text": "The sentiment is because between closing and opening a lot can happen, and between opening and the time your order actually goes through, even more can happen. An after-hours trade has an extra amount of short-term risk attached; the price of a stock at the opening bell is technically the same as its price as of the closing the previous trading day, but within a tenth of a second, which is forever in a computerized exchange, that price may move drastically one way or the other, based on news and on other markets. The sentiment, therefore, is simple; if you're trading after-hours, you're trading risky. You're not trading based on what the market's actually doing, you're trading based on what you think the market will do in the morning, and there's still more math going on every second in the privately-held supercomputers in rented cubes in the NYSE basement than you could do all night, digesting this news and projecting what it's going to do to the stocks. Now, if you've done your homework and the stock looks like a good long-term buy, with or without any after-hours news, then place the order at 3 in the morning; who cares what the stock's gonna do at the opening bell. You're gonna hold that stock for the next ten years, maybe; what it does in 5 seconds of opening turmoil is relatively minor compared to the monthly trends that you should be worrying about." }, { "docid": "181924", "title": "", "text": "Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously. It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock. The equality goes both ways. If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs)." }, { "docid": "261640", "title": "", "text": "\"The penny/pink sheet stocks you tend to see promoted are the ones a) with small public floats or, b) they are thinly traded. This means that any appreciable change in buy/sell volume will have an outsized effect on the stock's share price, even when the underlying fundamentals are not so great. Promoters are frequently paid based on how much they can move a stock's price, but such moves are not long-lasting. They peter out when the trading volumes return to more normal ranges for the stock because all of the hype has died out. There are some small-cap NASDAQ stocks which can be susceptible to promotion for the same reason -- they have small floats and/or are thinly traded. Once someone figures out the best targets, they'll accumulate a position and then start posting all kinds of \"\"news\"\" on the web in an effort to drum up interest so they can sell off their position into the buying that follows. The biggest problem with penny/pink sheet stocks is that they frequently fail to publish reliable financial statements, and their ownership is of a dubious nature. In the past, these types of stocks have been targeted by organized crime syndicates, which ran their own \"\"pump and dump\"\" operations as a way to make relatively easy money. This may still be true to some extent today. Be wary of investing in any publicly-traded firm that has to use promoters to drum up investor interest, because it can be a serious red flag. Even if it means missing out on a short-term opportunity, research the company before investing. Read its financials, understand how it has behaved through its trading history, learn about the products/services it is selling. Do your homework. Otherwise you are doing the investing equivalent of taking your money and lighting it on fire. Remember, there's a good reason these companies are trading as penny/pink sheet stocks, and it generally has nothing to do with the notion (the promoters will tell you) that somehow the \"\"market has missed out on this amazing opportunity.\"\" Pump and dump schemes, which lie at the heart of almost all stock promotion, rely on convincing you, the investor, that you're smart enough to see what others haven't. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "340815", "title": "", "text": "When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market." }, { "docid": "565432", "title": "", "text": "\"Is option trading permitted in the account? Most 401(k) do not permit this. 1 - it means none traded today. 2 - there are 50 outstanding contracts. Each one has a guy who is long and a guy who is short. 3 - not really, it might depend on the stock. 4 - no. With commissions so low, and the inherent leverage of options, one contract reflecting 100 shares of the underlying stock, the minimum is what you can sleep soundly with. 5 - because GLD does not reflect precisely 1/10 oz of gold's price. If you look at the prospectus, it reads \"\"The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of gold bullion, less the Trust’s expenses.\"\" Since there are no dividends to take expenses from, the GLD price will erode by .4% each year compared to the price of 1/10oz gold.\"" }, { "docid": "221238", "title": "", "text": "So far the answer is: observe the general direction of the market, using special tools if needed or you have them available (.e.g. Bollinger bands to help you understand the current trend) at the right time per above, do the roll with stop loss in place (meaning roll at a pre-determined max loss), and also a trailing stop loss if the roll works in your favor, to capture the profits on the roll. This trade was a learning experience. I sold the option at $20 thinking I'd get back in later in the day with the further out option at a good price, as the market goes back and forth. The underlying went up and never came back. I finally gritted my teeth and bought the new option at 23.10 (when it would have cost me about 20.20 before), i.e. a miss/loss of $3 on $20. The underlying continued to rise, from that point (hasn't been back), and now the option price is $29. Of course one needs to make sure the Implied Volatility of the option being left and the option going to is good/fair, and if not, either roll further out in time, nearer in time, our up / down the strike prices, to find the right target option. After doing that, one might do the strategy above, i.e. any good trade mgmt type strategy: seek to make a good decision, acknowledge when you were wrong (with stop loss), and act. Or, if you're right, cash in smartly (i.e. trailing stops)." }, { "docid": "167304", "title": "", "text": "\"When you buy a put option, you're buying the right to sell stock at the \"\"strike\"\" price. To understand why you have to pay separately for that, consider the other side of the transaction. If I agree to trade stock for money at above market rates, I need to make up the difference somewhere or face bankruptcy. That risk of loss is what the option price is about. You might assume that means the market expects the price of AMD to fall to 8.01 from it's current price of 8.06 by the option expiration date. But that would also mean call options below the market price is worthless. But that's not quite true; people who price options need to factor in volatility, since things change with time. The price MIGHT fall, and traders need to account for that risk. So 1.99 roughly represents the probability of AMD rising to 10. There's probably some technical analysis one can do to the chain, but I don't see any abnormality of AMD here.\"" }, { "docid": "525390", "title": "", "text": "\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\"" }, { "docid": "287325", "title": "", "text": "\"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale. This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called \"\"backdating\"\", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything.\"" }, { "docid": "560245", "title": "", "text": "The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc." }, { "docid": "427145", "title": "", "text": "In Australia there are 2 type of warrants (I don't know if it is the same in the US, UK and other countries), the first are trading warrants and the second are instalment warrants. The trading warrants are exactly what it says, they are used for trading. They are similar to option and have calls and puts. As Cameron says, they differ from exchange traded options in that they are issued by the financial companies whereas options are generally written by other investors. Instalment warrants on the other hand are usually bought and sold by investors with a longer term view. There are no calls and puts and you can just go long with them. They are also issued by financial companies, and how they work is best explained through an example: if I was to buy a stock directly say I would be paying $50 per share, however an instalment warrant in the underlying stock may be offered for $27 per warrant. I could buy the warrant directly from the company when it is issued or on the secondary market just like shares. I would pay the $27 per warrant upfront, and then in 2 years time when the warrant expires I have the choice to purchase the underlying stock for the strike price of say $28, roll over to a new issue of warrants, sell it back on the secondary market, or let it expire, in which case I would receive any intrinsic value left in the warrant. You would have noticed that the warrant purchase price plus the strike price adds up to more than the share price ($55 compared to $50). This is the interest component inherent in the warrant which covers the borrowing costs until expiry, when you pay the second portion (the strike price) and receive the underlying shares. Another difference between Instalment warrants and trading warrants (and options) is that with instalment warrants you still get the full dividends just like the shares, but at a higher yield than the shares." }, { "docid": "104789", "title": "", "text": "\"So, the term \"\"ready market\"\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \"\"spot market\"\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \"\"futures market\"\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \"\"cover my short\"\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\"" }, { "docid": "340125", "title": "", "text": "\"Sorry but you already provided the answer to your own question. The simple answer is to 'not day trade' but hold things for a longer period and don't trade a large number of different stocks every week. Seriously, have a look at the rules and see what it implies.. an average of 20 buys and sells of longer term positions PER DAY is a pretty fair bit of trading, that's really churning through the positions compared to someone who might establish positions with say 25 well picked stocks and might change even 5 of those a week to a different stock. Or even a larger number of stocks but seeking to hold them for over a year so you get taxed at the long term cap gains rate. If you want to day trade, be prepared to be labeled as such and deal with your broker on that basis. Not like they will hate you given all the fees you are likely to rack up. And the government will love you also, since you'll be paying short term gains taxes. (and trust me, us bogelheads appreciate the liquidity the speculative and short term folks bring to the market.) In terms of how it would impact you, Expect to be required to have a fairly substantial balance ($25K) if you are maintaining a margin account. I'd suggest reading this thread My account's been labeled as \"\"day trader\"\" and I got a big margin call. What should I do? What trades can I place in the blocked period?\"" }, { "docid": "76063", "title": "", "text": "Is that indicator can only be used for short-term trade? First of all, indicator works perfect during trends and oscillator works perfectly in the range market(or flat market). So, indicator can be used for long term, as well as short term. I mean if it is a range market, using this or any other indicator will not help much, so it you should consider market direction first. If it can be used to long-term trade, is there something I need to change from the parameters used? like, only using SMMA(5,8,13)? The parameters are there to change them. Of course you can change them based on your trading style. Considering my statement above does not mean that trading is very easy. I never use indicators alone to make trading decisions. It is always good to use oscillator to filter out bad trading signals." }, { "docid": "479461", "title": "", "text": "\"The S&P 500 is an index. This refers to a specific collection of securities which is held in perfect proportion. The dollar value of an index is scaled arbitrarily and is based off of an arbitrary starting price. (Side note: this is why an index never has a \"\"split\"\"). Lets look at what assumptions are included in the pricing of an index: All securities are held in perfect proportion. This means that if you invest $100 in the index you will receive 0.2746 shares of IBM, 0.000478 shares of General Motors, etc. Also, if a security is added/dropped from the list, you are immediately rebalancing the remaining money. Zero commissions are charged. When the index is calculated, they are using the current price (last trade) of the underlying securities, they are not actually purchasing them. Therefore it assumes that securities may be purchased without commission or other liquidity costs. Also closely related is the following. The current price has full liquidity. If the last quoted price is $20 for a security, the index assumes that you can purchase an arbitrary amount of the security at that price with a counterparty that is willing to trade. Dividends are distributed immediately. If you own 500 equities, and most distributed dividends quarterly, this means you will receive on average 4 dividends per day. Management is free. All equities can be purchased with zero research and administrative costs. There is no gains tax. Trading required by the assumptions above would change your holdings constantly and you are exempt from short-term or long-term capital gains taxes. Each one of these assumptions is, of course, invalid. And the fund which endeavors to track the index must make several decisions in how to closely track the index while avoiding the problems (costs) caused by the assumptions. These are shortcuts or \"\"approximations\"\". Each shortcut leads to performance which does not exactly match the index. Management fees. Fees are charged to the investor as load, annual fees and/or redemptions. Securities are purchased at real prices. If Facebook were removed from the S&P 500 overnight tonight, the fund would sell its shares at the price buyers are bidding the next market day at 09:30. This could be significantly different than the price today, which the index records. Securities are purchased in blocks. Rather than buying 0.000478 shares of General Motors each time someone invests a dollar, they wait for a few people and then buy a full share or a round lot. Securities are substituted. With lots of analysis, it may be determined that two stocks move in tandem. The fund may purchase two shares of General Motors rather than one of General Motors and Ford. This halves transaction costs. Debt is used. As part of substitution, equities may be replaced by options. Option pricing shows that ownership of options is equivalent to holding an amount of debt. Other forms of leverage may also be employed to achieve desired market exposure. See also: beta. Dividends are bundled. VFINX, the largest S&P 500 tracking fund, pays dividends quarterly rather than immediately as earned. The dividend money which is not paid to you is either deployed to buy other securities or put into a sinking fund for payment. There are many reasons why you can't get the actual performance quoted in an index. And for other more exotic indices, like VIX the volatility index, even more so. The best you can do is work with someone that has a good reputation and measure their performance.\"" }, { "docid": "203334", "title": "", "text": "To explain the capital gains part of the question, non qualified stock options (NSOs) are always treated like earned income and have payroll taxes withheld. It's advantageous for the company to issue these because they can deduct them as expenses just as they do your salary. Articles talking about capital gains would probably be referring to incentive stock options (ISOs) or possibly even restricted stock units (RSUs). If you were granted the option to buy the stock and/or hold it for a period of time, then the stock options could be treated as capital gains, short-term gains if you held them for less than a year, and long-term gains if you held them for more than a year. This payment for your NSOs is exactly like a cash bonus. The withholding follows the same guidelines. You may wish to look at what this will mean for your annual salary and adjust your W-4 withholding up or down as appropriate depending on whether the 25% federal withholding rate is more or less than what you think your final marginal rate will be with this bonus included in your annual salary." }, { "docid": "30394", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think that there is a generic answer that will apply to this question across all goods. The answer depends on how the related businesses work, how much insight you have into the true value of the goods, and probably other things. Your car example is a good one that shows multiple options - There are dealers who will buy as a single transaction, sell as a single transaction, or do a simultaneous sell with trade-in. I had a hot tub once, on the other hand, where I could find people who would do a trade-in, but there was no dealer who would just buy my used tub. There's not much parallel between the car and the tub because the options available are very different. To the extent that there is a generic answer, I generally agree with the point in @keshlam's answer about trying to avoid entrapment, but I take a slightly different view. If you want to get your best deal, you need to have an idea going into the process of what you want in net and keep focused on meeting your goal. If for some reason, it's convenient for the dealer to \"\"move money around\"\" between the new car and the trade-in, I'm ok with that as long as I'm getting what I want out of the deal. If possible, I prefer to deal with both transactions at once because it's simpler. At the same time, I'm willing to remove the trade-in from the deal if I'm not getting what I want. (Threatening to do so can also give you some information about where the dealer really puts the value between the new car and trade-in since, if you threaten to pull the trade-in, the price on the car will probably change in response.)\"" }, { "docid": "240351", "title": "", "text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not." }, { "docid": "575408", "title": "", "text": "An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules." } ]

[ { "docid": "27401", "title": "", "text": "\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "317399", "title": "", "text": "The major drawback to borrowing to invest (i.e. using leverage) is that your return on investment must be high enough to overcome the cost of finance. The average return on the S&P 500 is about 9.8% (from CNBC) a typical unsecured personal loan will have an interest rate of around 18-36% APR (from NerdWallet). This means that on average you will be paying more interest than you are receiving in returns so are losing money on the margin investment. Sometimes the S&P falls and over those periods you would be paying out interest having lost money so will have a negative return! You may have better credit and so be able to get a lower rate but I don't know your loan terms currently. Secured loans, such as remortgaging your house, will have lower costs but come with more life changing risks. The above assumes that you are getting financing by directly borrowing money, however, it is also possible to trade on margin. This is where you post a proportion of the value that you wish to trade with as collateral against a loan to buy the security. This form of finance is normally used by day traders and other short term holders of stocks. Although the financing costs here are low (I am not charged an interest rate on intraday margin trading) there are very high costs if you exceed the term of the loan. An example is that I am charged a fee if I hold a position overnight and my profits and losses are crystallised at that time. If I am in a losing position at that time the crystallisation process and fee can result in not having enough margin to recover the position and the loss of a potentially profit making position. Additionally if the amount of collateral cash (margin) posted is insufficient to cover the expected losses as calculated by your broker they will initiate a margin call asking for more collateral money. If you do not (or cannot) post this extra margin your losing position will be cashed out and you will take as a loss the total loss at that time. Since the market can change very rapidly, such as in a flash crash, this can result in your losing more money than you had in the first place. As this is essentially a loan you can be bankrupted by this. Overall using leverage to invest magnifies your potential profits but it also magnifies your potential losses. In many cases this magnification could be sufficient to lose you more money than you had originally invested. In addition to magnification you need to consider the cost of finance and that your return over the course of the loan needs to be higher than your cost of finance as well as inflation and other opportunity costs of capital. The S&P 500 is a relatively low volatility market in general so is unlikely to return losses in any given period that will mean that leverage of 1.25 times will take you into losses beyond your own capital investment but it is not impossible. The low level of risk automatically means that your returns are lower and so your cost of capital is likely to be a large proportion of your returns and your returns may not completely cover the cost of capital even when you are making money. The key thing if you are going to trade or invest on leverage is to understand the terms and costs of your leverage and discount them from any returns that you receive before declaring to yourself that you are profitable. It is even more important than usual to know how your positions are doing and whether you are covering your cost of capital when using leverage. It is also very important to know the terms of your leverage in detail, especially what will happen when and if your credit runs out for whatever reason be it the end of the financing period (the length of the loan) or your leverage ratio gets too high. You should also be aware of the costs of closing out the loan early should you need to do so and how to factor that into your investing decisions." }, { "docid": "253866", "title": "", "text": "Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean." }, { "docid": "525390", "title": "", "text": "\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\"" }, { "docid": "12740", "title": "", "text": "Technically, the difference between dividends and growth ought to be that dividends can be reinvested in stocks other than the one that paid them, which is a definite advantage if you actually have a strategy. Dividend -paying stocks used to be preferred for exactly that reason, back in the days when fewer people were directly playing in the market and more knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, getting a periodic dividend from a stock whose price is relatively steady isn't as exciting a game as watching your stock's value bounce around and (hopefully) creep upward on a second-by-second basis. Those who are thinking in gambling terms rather than investment terms -- or who think they can beat the pros at high frequency trading, comment withheld -- want the latter, and have been putting a lot of pressure on companies to operate in the latter mode. That doesn't make it better -- certainly not for the longer-term investors -- just more fashionable. And fashion often means getting stuck with something impractical because everyone else is doing it. On this, I second Scrooge: Humbug!" }, { "docid": "468388", "title": "", "text": "So, child, your goal is to make money? This is usually achieved by selling goods (say, lemonade) at a price that exceeds their cost (say, sugar, water and, well, lemons). Options, at first, are very much same in that you can buy the right to engage in a specific future trade. You make money in this situation if the eventual returns from the scheduled trade cover the cost of purchasing the option. Otherwise you can simply opt out of the trade -- you purchased the right to trade, after all, not any type of obligation. Makes sense? Good. Because what follows is what makes options a little different. That is, if you sell that same right to engage in a specific trade the situation is seemingly reversed: you lock in your return at the outset, but the costs aren't fully realized until the trade is either consumed or declined by the owner of the option. And keep in mind that it is always the owner of the option who is in the driver's seat; they may sell the option, hold on to it and do nothing, or use it to engage in the anticipated trade. And that's really all there's to it." }, { "docid": "287325", "title": "", "text": "\"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale. This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called \"\"backdating\"\", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything.\"" }, { "docid": "574820", "title": "", "text": "All securities must be registered with the SEC. Securities are defined as (1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. thus currencies are not defined as securities. While OTC transactions of securities is not outright forbidden, there are numerous regulations issued by the SEC as a result of the 1943 Exchange Act and others that make this difficult and/or costly. Many other securities are exempted from registration thus trade in a way that could be called OTC. Different countries have variances upon US law but are very similar. Any security could be traded OTC, but law prohibits it expressly or in such a way to make it relatively expensive; further, stock options are so tightly regulated that expiration dates, expiration intervals, strike intervals, and minimum ticks are all set by the authorities." }, { "docid": "193717", "title": "", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"" }, { "docid": "206756", "title": "", "text": "How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely. That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic. Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours. I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential)." }, { "docid": "240351", "title": "", "text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not." }, { "docid": "104789", "title": "", "text": "\"So, the term \"\"ready market\"\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \"\"spot market\"\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \"\"futures market\"\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \"\"cover my short\"\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\"" }, { "docid": "120611", "title": "", "text": "(Note: I am omitting the currency units. While I strongly suspect it's US$ I don't know from the chart. The system works the same no matter what the currency.) A call or a put is the right to sell (put) or buy (call) shares at a certain price on a certain day. This is why you see a whole range of prices. Not all possible stock values are represented, the number of possibilities has to be kept reasonable. In this case the choices are even units, for an expensive stock they may be spaced even farther apart than this. The top of the chart says it's for June. It's actually the third Friday in the month, June 15th in this case. Thus these are bets on how the stock will move in the next 10 days. While the numbers are per share you can only trade options in lots of 100. The left side of the chart shows calls. Suppose you sell a call at 19 (the top of the chart) The last such trade would have gotten you a premium of 9.70 per share (the flip side of this is when the third friday rolls around it will most likely be exercised and they'll be paying you only 19 a share for a stock now trading at something over 26.) Note the volume, bid and ask columns though--you're not going to get 9.70 for such a call as there is no buyer. The most anybody is offering at present is 7.80 a share. Now, lets look farther down in the chart--say, a strike price of 30. The last trade was only .10--people think it's very unlikely that FB will rise above 30 to make this option worthwhile and thus you get very little for being willing to sell at that price. If FB stays at 26 the option will expire worthless and go away. If it's up to 31 when the 15th rolls around they'll exercise the option, take your shares and pay you 30 for them. Note that you already gave permission for the trade by selling the call, you can't back out later if it becomes a bad deal. Going over to the other side of the chart with the puts: Here the transaction goes the other way, come the 15th they have the option of selling you the shares for the strike price. Lets look at the same values we did before. 19? There's no trading, you can't do it. 30? Here you will collect 3.20 for selling the put. Come the 15th they have the right to sell you the stock for 30 a share. If it's still 26 they're certainly going to do so, but if it's up to 31 it's worthless and you pocket the 3.20 Note that you will normally not be allowed to sell a call if you don't own the shares in question. This is a safety measure as the risk in selling a call without the stock is infinite. If the stock somehow zoomed up to 10,000 when the 15th rolls around you would have to come up with the shares and the only way you could get them is buy them on the open market--you would have to come up with a million dollars. If there simply aren't enough shares available to cover the calls the result is catastrophic--whoever owns the shares simply gets to dictate terms to you. (And in the days of old this sometimes happened.)" }, { "docid": "398442", "title": "", "text": "A Section 1256 contract is any: Non-equity options include debt options, commodity futures options, currency options, and broad-based stock index options. A broad-based stock index is based upon the value of a group of diversified stocks or securities (such as the Standard and Poor's 500 index). 60% of the capital gain or loss from Section 1256 Contracts is deemed to be long-term capital gain or loss and 40% is deemed to be short-term capital gain or loss. What this means is a more favorable tax treatment of 60% of your gains. http://www.tradelogsoftware.com/tax-topics/futures/ It's a really wierd rule (arbitraty 60% designation, so broad, etc), but section 1256 contracts get preferential tax treatment and that's what Buffett's talking about." }, { "docid": "599523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of \"\"what does this mean\"\" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical \"\"what actual variables in the market represent this quantity\"\". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true.\"" }, { "docid": "507828", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question. I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising. You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place. Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of \"\"cancelling\"\" an option you purchased: No, you cannot \"\"cancel\"\" an option contract, per se. But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market. When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value. Once you sell, you're back to \"\"no position\"\". That's not the same as \"\"cancelled\"\", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who \"\"sold to open\"\" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote. However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market. Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time. This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a \"\"buy to close\"\", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position. (The other kind of buy is the \"\"buy to open\"\".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who \"\"sold to open\"\" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract. For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation. Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having to find the original opposite party. [...]   [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment. (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: \"\"I know my counter party cannot sell his shares\"\" ... that's not strictly true. You are thinking of a covered call. But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares. Look up Naked call (Wikipedia). Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call \"\"is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk\"\". The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC).\"" }, { "docid": "340815", "title": "", "text": "When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market." }, { "docid": "388718", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure what you expect in terms of answers, but it depends on personal factors. It pretty well has to depend on personal factors, since otherwise everyone would want to do the same thing (either everyone thinks the current price is one to sell at, or everyone thinks it's one to buy at), and there would be no trades. You wouldn't be able to do what you want, except on the liquidity provided by market makers. Once that's hit, the price is shifting quickly, so your calculation will change quickly too. Purely in terms of maximising expected value taking into account the time value of money, it's all about the same. The market \"\"should\"\" already know everything you know, which means that one time to sell is as good as any other. The current price is generally below the expected acquisition price because there's a chance the deal will fall through and the stock price will plummet. That's not to say there aren't clever \"\"sure-fire\"\" trading strategies around acquisitions, but they're certain to be based on more than just timing when to sell an existing holding of stock. If you have information that the market doesn't (and assuming it is legal to do so) then you trade based on that information. If you know something the market doesn't that's going to be good for price, hold. If you know something that will reduce the price, sell now. And \"\"know\"\" can be used in a loose sense, if you have a strong opinion against the market then you might like to invest based on that. Nothing beats being paid for being right. Finally, bear in mind that expected return is not the same as utility. You have your own investment goals and your own view of risk. If you're more risk-averse than the market then you might prefer to sell now rather than wait for the acquisition. If you're more risk-prone than the market then you might prefer a 90% chance of $1 to 90c. That's fine, hold the stock. The extreme case of this is that you might have a fixed sum at which you will definitely sell up, put everything into the most secure investments you can find, and retire to the Caribbean. If that's the case then you become totally risk-averse the instant your holding crosses that line. Sell and order cocktails.\"" }, { "docid": "565432", "title": "", "text": "\"Is option trading permitted in the account? Most 401(k) do not permit this. 1 - it means none traded today. 2 - there are 50 outstanding contracts. Each one has a guy who is long and a guy who is short. 3 - not really, it might depend on the stock. 4 - no. With commissions so low, and the inherent leverage of options, one contract reflecting 100 shares of the underlying stock, the minimum is what you can sleep soundly with. 5 - because GLD does not reflect precisely 1/10 oz of gold's price. If you look at the prospectus, it reads \"\"The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of gold bullion, less the Trust’s expenses.\"\" Since there are no dividends to take expenses from, the GLD price will erode by .4% each year compared to the price of 1/10oz gold.\"" }, { "docid": "560245", "title": "", "text": "The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc." } ]

[ { "docid": "320101", "title": "", "text": "\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "104789", "title": "", "text": "\"So, the term \"\"ready market\"\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \"\"spot market\"\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \"\"futures market\"\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \"\"cover my short\"\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\"" }, { "docid": "117634", "title": "", "text": "Sure, with some general rules of thumb: what is the minimum portfolio balance to avoid paying too much for transaction fees? Well, the fee doesn't change with portfolio balance or order size, so I don't know what you're trying to do here. The way to have less transaction fees is to have less transactions. That means no day-trading, no option rolling, etc. A Buy-and-hold strategy (with free dividend reinvestment if available) will minimize transaction fees." }, { "docid": "580757", "title": "", "text": "If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are]." }, { "docid": "498056", "title": "", "text": "Unlike the stock market which offers growth long term, the derivatives market is a zero sum game. This phrase is how one describes a poker game. 7 people walk in, and walk out with the same total amount of money (note, the 7th guy is the 'house', and with nothing at risk, he gets his cut). No money is created, the total value doesn't change. When I buy or sell an option, there is someone on the other side of that trade with a gain or loss equal and opposite to my position. At option expiration, or a repurchase that closes an open contract, the whole series of trades resulted in no net gain of wealth. The huge losses were spread among the banks, the investors, the insurance companies, and the government. By government, I mean the taxpayer. You paid your share, my friend, as did I. Welcome to Money.SE. Get to 150 rep, and vote in the election." }, { "docid": "599523", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of \"\"what does this mean\"\" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical \"\"what actual variables in the market represent this quantity\"\". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true.\"" }, { "docid": "504658", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; How do I go about trading options is it a viable route for some \"\"broke\"\" college kid? First off, I wouldn't trade what I don't understand. Second, you'd use a broker to trade options. Third, I wouldn't recommend any trading for someone with low income and low current net worth/available cash.\"" }, { "docid": "46529", "title": "", "text": "It is a general truism but the reasons are that the rules change dramatically when you simply have more capital. Here are some examples, limited to particular kinds of markets: Under $2,000 in capital Nobody is going to offer you a margin account, and if you do get one it isn't with the best broker on commissions and other capabilities. So this means cash only trading, enjoy your 3 business day settlement periods. This means no shorting, confining a trader to only buy and hold strategies, making them more dependent on luck than a more capable trader. This means it is more expensive to buy stock, since you have to put down 100% of the cash to hold a share, whereas someone with more money puts down less capital to hold the exact same number of shares. This means no covered options strategies or spreads, again limiting the market directions where a trader could earn Under $25,000 in capital In the stock market, the pattern day trader rule applies to retail margin accounts with a balance under $25,000 and this severally limits the kinds of trades you are able to take because of the limit in the number of trades you can take in a given time period. Forget managing a multi-leg option position when the market isn't moving your direction. Under $125,000 in capital Worse margin rules. You excluded portfolio margin from your post, but it is a key part of the answer Over $1,000,000 in capital Participate in private placements, regulation D offerings reserved for accredited investors. These days, as buy and hold investments, these generally have more growth potential than publicly traded offerings. Over $5,000,000 in capital You can easily get the compliance and risk manager to turn the other way on margin rules. This is not conjecture, leverage up to infinity, try not to bankrupt yourself and the trading firm." }, { "docid": "181924", "title": "", "text": "Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously. It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock. The equality goes both ways. If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs)." }, { "docid": "188364", "title": "", "text": "\"This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves). Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with \"\"promotions\"\" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all, then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so.\"" }, { "docid": "416483", "title": "", "text": "QE2 will mean that there are about $500 billion dollars in existence which weren't there before. These dollars will all be competing with the existing dollars for real goods and services, so each dollar will be worth a little less, and prices will rise a little. This is inflation. You can probably expect 1.5%-2% annual inflation for the US dollar over the next several years (the market certainly does in the aggregate, anyway). This is in terms of US-based goods and services. QE2 will also reduce the amount of other currencies you can get for the same dollar amount. The extent to which this will occur is less clear, in part because other currencies are also considering quantitative easing. Your long-term savings should probably not be in cash anyway, because of the low returns; this will probably affect you far more than the impact of quantitative easing. As for your savings which do remain in cash, what you should do with them depends on how you plan to dispose of them. The value of a currency is usually pretty stable in terms of the local economy's output of goods and services - it's the value in international trade which tends to fluctuate wildly. If you keep your savings in the same currency you plan to spend them in, they should be able to maintain their value decently well in the intermediate term." }, { "docid": "444461", "title": "", "text": "Oh it is ok. I was a little confused, because I tried to read up on future options and options as much as possible, and to still get question marks worried me. I mean to my knowledge, options can be traded as is without margin, while futures do need margin. If you are a starving artist, you can see the draw of not having to have margin to keep track of, but be able at the same time to learn about another market to trade in (commodities)." }, { "docid": "427145", "title": "", "text": "In Australia there are 2 type of warrants (I don't know if it is the same in the US, UK and other countries), the first are trading warrants and the second are instalment warrants. The trading warrants are exactly what it says, they are used for trading. They are similar to option and have calls and puts. As Cameron says, they differ from exchange traded options in that they are issued by the financial companies whereas options are generally written by other investors. Instalment warrants on the other hand are usually bought and sold by investors with a longer term view. There are no calls and puts and you can just go long with them. They are also issued by financial companies, and how they work is best explained through an example: if I was to buy a stock directly say I would be paying $50 per share, however an instalment warrant in the underlying stock may be offered for $27 per warrant. I could buy the warrant directly from the company when it is issued or on the secondary market just like shares. I would pay the $27 per warrant upfront, and then in 2 years time when the warrant expires I have the choice to purchase the underlying stock for the strike price of say $28, roll over to a new issue of warrants, sell it back on the secondary market, or let it expire, in which case I would receive any intrinsic value left in the warrant. You would have noticed that the warrant purchase price plus the strike price adds up to more than the share price ($55 compared to $50). This is the interest component inherent in the warrant which covers the borrowing costs until expiry, when you pay the second portion (the strike price) and receive the underlying shares. Another difference between Instalment warrants and trading warrants (and options) is that with instalment warrants you still get the full dividends just like the shares, but at a higher yield than the shares." }, { "docid": "287325", "title": "", "text": "\"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale. This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called \"\"backdating\"\", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything.\"" }, { "docid": "388718", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure what you expect in terms of answers, but it depends on personal factors. It pretty well has to depend on personal factors, since otherwise everyone would want to do the same thing (either everyone thinks the current price is one to sell at, or everyone thinks it's one to buy at), and there would be no trades. You wouldn't be able to do what you want, except on the liquidity provided by market makers. Once that's hit, the price is shifting quickly, so your calculation will change quickly too. Purely in terms of maximising expected value taking into account the time value of money, it's all about the same. The market \"\"should\"\" already know everything you know, which means that one time to sell is as good as any other. The current price is generally below the expected acquisition price because there's a chance the deal will fall through and the stock price will plummet. That's not to say there aren't clever \"\"sure-fire\"\" trading strategies around acquisitions, but they're certain to be based on more than just timing when to sell an existing holding of stock. If you have information that the market doesn't (and assuming it is legal to do so) then you trade based on that information. If you know something the market doesn't that's going to be good for price, hold. If you know something that will reduce the price, sell now. And \"\"know\"\" can be used in a loose sense, if you have a strong opinion against the market then you might like to invest based on that. Nothing beats being paid for being right. Finally, bear in mind that expected return is not the same as utility. You have your own investment goals and your own view of risk. If you're more risk-averse than the market then you might prefer to sell now rather than wait for the acquisition. If you're more risk-prone than the market then you might prefer a 90% chance of $1 to 90c. That's fine, hold the stock. The extreme case of this is that you might have a fixed sum at which you will definitely sell up, put everything into the most secure investments you can find, and retire to the Caribbean. If that's the case then you become totally risk-averse the instant your holding crosses that line. Sell and order cocktails.\"" }, { "docid": "380951", "title": "", "text": "You are asking 'what if', do you have some anticipated answers? Having volume smaller than open interest is the norm. As far as I can tell, having only one trading day and no previous open interest only affects someone trying to sell a contract they are holding. Meaning that if you only have one day to sell your contract then you need to offer it 'at market' or at the bid price (or even lower than the bid price). If you cannot sell your contract then you have to let it expire worthless or you have to exercise it. Those are your three options: let it expire, sell it (perhaps at a loss), and exercise it. Edit: be careful about holding an in-the-money option. Many brokers will automatically exercise an in-the-money contract if you hold it till expiration date." }, { "docid": "206756", "title": "", "text": "How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely. That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic. Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours. I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential)." }, { "docid": "225395", "title": "", "text": "\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"" }, { "docid": "258227", "title": "", "text": "How long is a piece of string? This will depend on many variables. How many trades will you make in a day? What income would you be expecting to make? What expectancy do you need to achieve? Which markets you will choose to trade? Your first step should be to develop a Trading Plan, then develop your trading rules and your risk management. Then you should back test your strategy and then use a virtual account to practice losing on. Because one thing you will get is many losses. You have to learn to take a loss when the market moves against you. And you need to let your profits run and keep your losses small. A good book to start with is Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom by Van Tharp. It will teach you about Expectancy, Money Management, Risk Management and the Phycology of Trading. Two thing I can recommend are: 1) to look into position and trend trading and other types of short term trading instead of day trading. You would usually place your trades after market close together with your stops and avoid being in front of the screen all day trying to chase the market. You need to take your emotion out of your trading if you want to succeed; 2) don't trade penny stocks, trade commodities, FX or standard stocks, but keep away from penny stocks. Just because you can buy them for a penny does not mean they are cheap." }, { "docid": "281533", "title": "", "text": "\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "6574", "title": "", "text": "Options are a derivative product, and in this case, derive their value from an underlying security, a traded stock. An option gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy a stock at a given price (the strike price) by a given time (the expiration date.) What I just described is a call option. The opposite instrument is a put, giving you the right, but not the obligation, to sell the stock at a given price. Volumes have been written on the subject, but I'd suggest that for a custodial Roth, I'd not activate the ability to trade options. How to get started with options investing? offers a nice introduction to trading options. In my response, I offer an example of a trade that's actually less risky due to the option component." } ]

[ { "docid": "484778", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"" }, { "docid": "60261", "title": "", "text": "\"You do not say what country you are in. This is an answer for readers in the UK. Most normal balance transfer deals are only for paying off other credit cards. However there are \"\"money transfer\"\" deals that will pay the money direct to your bank account. The deals aren't as good as balance transfer deals but they are often a competitive option compared to other types of borrowing. Another option depending on how much you need to borrow and your regular spending habits is to get a card with a \"\"0% for purchases\"\" deal and use that card for your regular shopping, then put the money you would have spent on your regular shopping towards the car.\"" }, { "docid": "584419", "title": "", "text": "\"Bank of America has been selling off their local branches to smaller banks in recent years. Here are a few news stories related to this: Along with the branch buildings, the local customers' savings and checking accounts are sold to the new bank. It is interesting that you were told that your savings account is being sold, but that your checking account will remain with BofA. I guess it depends on the terms of the particular sale. Here are your options, as I see it: Let the savings account move to the new bank, and see what the new terms are like. You might actually like the new bank. If you don't, you can shop around and close your account at the new bank after it has been created. Close your account now, before the move. If you have a different bank you'd like to move to, there is no need to wait. Since your checking account is apparently staying with BofA, you could move all your money from your savings account to your checking account, closing your savings account. Then after \"\"mid August\"\" when the local branch switches to the new bank and everyone else's savings account has moved, you can call up BofA and tell them you want to move some of the money from your checking account into a new savings account. If you really have your heart set on staying with BofA, option 3 looks like a good, easy choice. To address your other concerns: Bank of America is a big credit card company, so I doubt that your credit card is being sold off. Your credit card account should stay as-is. Even if your savings account and checking account are at a different bank, there is no need to switch credit cards. Your savings and checking accounts have nothing to do with your credit report or score, so there is no concern there. If you end up wanting to switch to a new credit card with a different bank, there are minor hits to your credit score involved with applying for a new card and closing your current card, but if I were you I would not worry about your credit score in this. Switch credit cards if you want a change, and keep your credit card if you don't.\"" }, { "docid": "167304", "title": "", "text": "\"When you buy a put option, you're buying the right to sell stock at the \"\"strike\"\" price. To understand why you have to pay separately for that, consider the other side of the transaction. If I agree to trade stock for money at above market rates, I need to make up the difference somewhere or face bankruptcy. That risk of loss is what the option price is about. You might assume that means the market expects the price of AMD to fall to 8.01 from it's current price of 8.06 by the option expiration date. But that would also mean call options below the market price is worthless. But that's not quite true; people who price options need to factor in volatility, since things change with time. The price MIGHT fall, and traders need to account for that risk. So 1.99 roughly represents the probability of AMD rising to 10. There's probably some technical analysis one can do to the chain, but I don't see any abnormality of AMD here.\"" }, { "docid": "439274", "title": "", "text": "Of course its possible. Under what terms and with what fees depends on your bank/country regulations, but generally speaking - loaning is the major source of income for banks, especially short-term account overdrafts (which is essentially a loan, usually at a high rate). In the US you can (now, since the new regulations kicked in) instruct the bank not to pay checks/decline debit card purchases if you don't have sufficient funds on the account. Otherwise you can instruct them to pay (at their discretion) to avoid bouncing checks, and accept NSF fees (usually pretty high). Some banks provide overdraft lines of credit (then you won't have NSF fees, and will just pay interest when tapping into that line), others provide option to automatically withdraw the missing amount from a linked account (checking or credit card)." }, { "docid": "489278", "title": "", "text": "The deposit insurance isn't provided by the bank; it's provided by the Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation (SDIC). In the event that the bank fails or is declared insolvent, the SDIC will pay deposit holders their total balance in all accounts with that bank, up to S$50,000. If you hold S$60,000 in all of your insured accounts, you'll only receive S$50,000 if the bank fails. The SDIC provides an example page with sample calculations, and this is exactly what they show. If you deposit an amount greater than $S50,000, it's only insured up to S$50,000. So does it mean one should open multiple accounts under different banks to spread the money around and maintain only S$50,000 in one deposit account? This is one option. The calculations page I linked to above gives this reminder: Deposits are not insured separately in each branch office of a DI Scheme member i.e. all your eligible accounts maintained with different branches of a DI Scheme member are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. This seems like common sense, but it's important to remember that if you open an account with two branch offices of Bank A, your deposits are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. The SDIC insurance is per institution (called a Deposit Insurance Member), not per branch. If you hold S$45,000 in each branch office, for a total of S$90,000, you're still only insured up to S$50,000 for that bank. If you want to spread out your accounts between multiple banks, make sure they're different banks, not just different branches. Another option, if it applies to you, is to open a joint account with your spouse. In the FAQ page, the SDIC gives this example under point 14: if you and your husband have a joint account with S$70,000, and you have a separate account of S$20,000, your total deposits of S$55,000 will be covered to the maximum of S$50,000. The deposit of $S70,000 is split evenly between the spouses, so in the eyes of the SDIC, each are holding S$35,000. Then, the husband's additional S$20,000 is added to S$35,000 for a total of S$50,000. This is then insured up to S$50,000 as usual. I'm sure there are other options specific to Singapore that I'm not aware of; if you're well above the limit, i.e. holding millions of dollars, I'm sure a professional accountant in Singapore could guide you further." }, { "docid": "266840", "title": "", "text": "The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc." }, { "docid": "275058", "title": "", "text": "What is the point of this? Can't I achieve the exact same effect and outcome by exchanging currency now and put that amount of USD in a bank account to gain some interest, then make the payment from one year from now? This is for companies, not individuals. Companies usually take loans, because they think they can make more money (e.g. 10%*) than the interest on the loan (e.g. 5%*). Putting money on a bank account to earn interest there would give them even less (e.g. 1%*). So with your option, instead of earning 10%* interest, they'd earn 1%* interest. If the cost of the currency forward is less than these 9%* difference, the forward saves them money. If they have excess cash and they don't know how to invest that money, your option may be preferable *Simple numbers chosen for simplicity, not accuracy." }, { "docid": "391463", "title": "", "text": "Short Answer: Go to the bank and ask them about your options for opening a business account. Talk to an attorney about the paperwork and company structure and taxes. Long Answer: You and your buddies jointly own an unincorporated business. This is called a partnership. Yes, there is paperwork involved in doing it properly and the fact that you guys are minors might complicate that paperwork a little bit. In terms of what type of account to open: A business account! Running a business through a personal account (joint or otherwise) is a sure way to get that account shut down. Your bank will want to know the structure of the business, and will require documentation to support that. For a partnership, they will probably want a copy of the partnership agreement. For an LLC, they'll probably want a copy of the filing with Ohio Secretary of State as well as the operating agreement etc. That said, pop into a local bank and ask a business banker directly what you should do. They deal with new businesses all the time, and would probably be best qualified to help you figure out the bank account aspect of it. Regarding business structure... this really impacts a lot more than just the type of bank account to open and how you file your taxes. It is something you guys should really discuss with an attorney. What happens if down the road one of you quits? What happens if you want to bring in a new partner later? What if there is a disagreement about something? These are all things that the attorney can help you address ahead of time - which is a heck of a lot easier (and cheaper) than trying to figure it out later. You're brining in enough that you should certainly be able to buy a couple hours of a lawyer's time. Getting the formation stuff right could save all of you a lot of money and heartache later." }, { "docid": "389281", "title": "", "text": "As you are 14, you cannot legally buy premium bonds yourself. Your parents could buy them and hold them for you, mind you. That said, I'm not a fan of premium bonds. They are a rather weird combination of a savings account and a lottery. Most likely, you'll receive far less than the standard interest rate you'd get from a savings account. Sure, they may pay off, but they probably won't. What I would suggest, given that you expect to need the money in five years, is simply place it in a savings account. Shop around for the best interest rate you can find. This article lists interest rates, though you'll want to confirm that it is up to date. There are other investment options. You could invest in a mutual fund which tracks the stock market or the bond market, for example. On average, that'll give you a higher rate of return. But there's more risk, and as you want the money in five years, I'd be uncomfortable recommending that at this time. If you were looking at investing for 25 years, that'd be a no-brainer. But it's a bit risky for 5 years. Your investment may go down, and that's not something I'd have been happy with when I was 14. There may be some other options specific to the UK which I don't know about. If so, hopefully someone else will chime in." }, { "docid": "367928", "title": "", "text": "It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen." }, { "docid": "440794", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the issue you are having is that the option value is not a \"\"flow\"\" but rather a liability that changes value over time. It is best to illustrate with a balance sheet. The $33 dollars would be the premium net of expense that you would receive from your brokerage for having shorted the options. This would be your asset. The liability is the right for the option owner (the person you sold it to) to exercise and purchase stock at a fixed price. At the moment you sold it, the \"\"Marked To Market\"\" (MTM) value of that option is $40. Hence you are at a net account value of $33-$40= $-7 which is the commission. Over time, as the price of that option changes the value of your account is simply $33 - 2*(option price)*(100) since each option contract is for 100 shares. In your example above, this implies that the option price is 20 cents. So if I were to redo the chart it would look like this If the next day the option value goes to 21 cents, your liability would now be 2*(0.21)*(100) = $42 dollars. In a sense, 2 dollars have been \"\"debited\"\" from your account to cover your potential liability. Since you also own the stock there will be a credit from that line item (not shown). At the expiry of your option, since you are selling covered calls, if you were to be exercised on, the loss on the option and the gain on the shares you own will net off. The final cost basis of the shares you sold will be adjusted by the premium you've received. You will simply be selling your shares at strike + premium per share (0.20 cents in this example)\"" }, { "docid": "449280", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as \"\"sell to open\"\" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are. As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price.\"" }, { "docid": "82159", "title": "", "text": "When you are saving for money you need in 5 years or less the only real option is a savings account. I know the return is nothing at this point, but if you cannot take the risk of losing all of your money that's the only thing I would recommend. Now you could try a good growth stock mutual fund if, when you look up in 2 - 3 years and you have lost money you wait it out until it grows enough to get what you lost back then buy your house. I would not do the second option because I wouldn't want to be stuck renting while waiting for the account to recover, and actually thinking about it that way you have more risk. 3 years from now if you have lost money and don't yet have enough saved you will have to continue paying rent, and no mutual fund will out preform that." }, { "docid": "480967", "title": "", "text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"" }, { "docid": "180400", "title": "", "text": "Restricting the discussion only to Internet hacking: In Option 2 or Option 3, you have to realize that the funds are credited to a specific Registered Bank Account. So the max damage an hacker can do is liquidate your holding. In Option 2, the Banking Internet Login and the Broker Internet Login will be different, For example HDFC Bank and HDFC Securities. In Option 3, if you choose your Bank, then it will be the same Login. If you choose a Non-Bank as provider then there is a different login. The risk is no different to investing in shares. In the end its up to an individual, there is nothing that stops you from opening multiple accounts in option 2 and option 3 and buying the stocks worth particular value. From an overall risk point of view; Option 2 seems best suited as the units are held in a Demat from by a Depository." }, { "docid": "80894", "title": "", "text": "The broker would give you a margin call and get you to deposit more funds into your account. They wouldn't wait for the stock price to reach $30, but would take this action much earlier. More over it is very unrealistic for any stock to go up 275% over a few hours, and if the stock was this volatile the broker would be asking for a higher margin to start with. What I am really worried about is that if there were any situation like this you are not considering what you would do as part of your risk management strategy. Before writing the option you should already have an exit point at which you would buy back the option to limit your losses." }, { "docid": "336217", "title": "", "text": "We've been in this situation for about 10 years now. We don't have to send money back to Canada very often, but when we do, we typically just write a US$ check/cheque and send it to a relative back home to cash for us. We've found that the Canadian banks are much more familiar with US currency than vice versa, and typically have better exchange rates than many of the other options. That said, we haven't done an exhaustive search for the best deal. If you haven't left Canada yet, you might consider opening up a US funds account at the same bank as your Canadian funds account if the bank will allow you to transfer money between the accounts. I haven't priced out that option, so I don't know what the exchange rate would look like there. Also, you didn't ask about this, but if you have any RRSP accounts in Canada, make sure they're with a broker that is licensed to accept trades from US-based customers. Otherwise, you won't be able to move your money around to different investments within the RRSP. Once you're resident in the US, you will no longer be able to open any new accounts in Canada, but you will be able to maintain the ones you already have." }, { "docid": "383930", "title": "", "text": "Option contracts typically each represent 100 shares. So the 1 call contract you sold to open (wrote) grants the buyer of that option the right to purchase your 100 shares for $80.00 per share any time before the option expiration date. You were paid a gross amount of $100 (100 shares times $1.00 premium per share) for taking on the obligation to deliver should the option holder choose to exercise. You received credit in your account of $89.22, which ought to be the $100 less any trading commission (~$10?) and miscellaneous fees (regulatory, exchange, etc.) per contract. You did capture premium. However, your covered call write represents an open short position that, until either (a) the option expires worthless, or (b) is exercised, or (c) is bought back to close the position, will continue to show on your account as a liability. Until the open position is somehow closed, the value of both the short option contract and long stock will continue to fluctuate. This is normal." } ]

[ { "docid": "218728", "title": "", "text": "The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined." } ]

[ { "docid": "169240", "title": "", "text": "You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States." }, { "docid": "453624", "title": "", "text": "\"Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money. In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money. They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own. Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time. That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold. What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard. By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment. Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide? A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a \"\"great apartment to invest in?\"\", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years? The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist. There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate. Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate. (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk. They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan. Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank. You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are. They get less return if things go really well.\"" }, { "docid": "56894", "title": "", "text": "I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor." }, { "docid": "246624", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\"" }, { "docid": "66453", "title": "", "text": "\"The pros and cons of investing in a closed end fund both stem from the fact that the price per share is likely to differ from the net asset value (NAV) of the underlying assets. That could work to your advantage if the fund is selling for LESS than NAV, or at a discount. Then you get the \"\"benefit of the bargain\"\" and hope to sell the shares in the future for \"\"par\"\" or even a premium (MORE than NAV). On the other hand, if you buy such a fund at a premium, you stand to have a RELATIVE loss if the value of the fund goes back to par (or a discount) compared to NAV. That's because a closed end fund has a FIXED number of shares, with the assets continually being reinvested. In essence, you are \"\"buying out\"\" an existing shareholder of the fund at a price determined by supply and demand. This differs from an OPEN end fund, in which your contribution creates NEW shares (all other things being equal). Then the fund, has to invest YOUR money (and charges you a fee for the service) on exactly a pro rata basis with other investors in the fund, meaning that you will enter and exit such a fund at \"\"par.\"\" In either case, your return depends mainly on the performance of the underlying assets. But there are premium/discount issues for investing in a closed end fund.\"" }, { "docid": "595981", "title": "", "text": "Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation." }, { "docid": "331008", "title": "", "text": "\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"" }, { "docid": "500863", "title": "", "text": "Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner." }, { "docid": "245702", "title": "", "text": "\"It appears that there's a confusion between the different types of average. Saying \"\"the average investor\"\" generally means the most common type of small-scale unsophisticated investor - the mode (or possibly median) investor. However, while this class of investors is numerous, each of them has assets that are quite small compared to some other types of investors; and the market average performance is determined proportionally to the amount of assets held, not to the number of holders; so the performance of large investors \"\"counts\"\" that much more. For any measure, the mode of performance can be (and often is) different from the mean performance - in this case, Dalbar is saying that the most common results are lower than the (weighed) average results.\"" }, { "docid": "497266", "title": "", "text": "I work as an investment risk manager for what would popularly be called a top tier investment manager. Most large asset managers use vendor models like RiskMetrics, Algorithmics, Barclays Point, Barra or something similar, and use those to calculate endless varieties of analytics and risk metrics. Some of these are granular risk models (single asset based and computing covariances between them) while others are factor models (e.g. mapping bonds to a yield curve and sector and country spread and computing the risk largely based on that mapping). Things like Value at Risk in any of its many flavors (simulated vs non simulated, mainly), ex-ante risk relative to a benchmark, stress tests, duration, beta, yield, spread, expected shortfall, what have you... Counterparty/credit risk is a whole different world I could get into. What else do you want to know in detail?" }, { "docid": "216757", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"" }, { "docid": "414205", "title": "", "text": "\"they said the expected returns from the stock market are around 7-9%(ish). (emphasis added) The key word in your quote is expected. On average \"\"the market\"\" gains in the 7-9% range (more if you reinvest dividends), but there's a great deal of risk too, meaning that in any given year the market could be down 20% or be up 30%. Your student loan, on the other hand, is risk free. You are guaranteed to pay (lose) 4% a year in interest. You can't directly compare the expected return of a risk-free asset with the expected return of a risky asset. You can compare the risks of two assets with equal expected returns, and the expected returns of assets with equal risks, but you can't directly compare returns of assets with different risks. So in two years, you might be better off if you had invested the money versus paying the loan, or you might be much worse off. In ten years, your chances of coming out ahead are better, but still not guaranteed. What's confusing is I've heard that if you're investing, you should be investing in both stocks and bonds (since I'm young I wouldn't want to put much in bonds, though). So how would that factor in? Bonds have lower risk (uncertainty) than stocks, but lower expected returns. If you invest in both, your overall risk is lower, since sometimes (not always) the gain in stocks are offset by losses in bonds). So there is value in diversifying, since you can get better expected returns from a diversified portfolio than from a single asset with a comparable amount of risk. However, there it no risk-free asset that will have a better return than what you're paying in student loan interest.\"" }, { "docid": "12623", "title": "", "text": "I would say your decision making is reasonable. You are in the middle of Brexit and nobody knows what that means. Civil society in the United States is very strained at the moment. The one seeming source of stability in Europe, Germany, may end up with a very weakened government. The only country that is probably stable is China and it has weak protections for foreign investors. Law precedes economics, even though economics often ends up dictating the law in the long run. The only thing that may come to mind is doing two things differently. The first is mentally dropping the long-term versus short-term dichotomy and instead think in terms of the types of risks an investment is exposed to, such as currency risk, political risk, liquidity risk and so forth. Maturity risk is just one type of risk. The second is to consider taking some types of risks that are hedged either by put contracts to limit the downside loss, or consider buying longer-dated call contracts using a small percentage of your money. If the underlying price falls, then the call contracts will be a total loss, but if the price increases then you will receive most of the increase (minus the premium). If you are uncomfortable purchasing individual assets directly, then I would say you are probably doing everything that you reasonably can do." }, { "docid": "317552", "title": "", "text": "\"So I'm in Australia and we have our very own housing price/credit bubble right now (which is finally deflating) and I'll try explain it as I understand. I welcome anyone to chime in and correct me. The problem we faced (still face to a large degree) is the idea of rising asset prices and how this fuels a feedback loop into increasing personal debt, all based on the false assumption that house prices always go up. Now before I continue, house prices *do* always go up in the long run, but so does the cost of everything and we call that inflation, adjusting for this effect usually reveals that house prices are cyclical in the long term and never really 'grow'. So that aside we in Australia recently saw a long period of increasing house prices (as did the USA and Europe, and more recently China), the thing about house price is it is your 'equity', I'll try and explain: (all figures are made up to provide a simple example) if you borrow $200,000 to buy a house that costs $250,000 you owe the bank 80% of the equity (what your home is 'worth', and notionally this is value that you own) in your home and the bank will be happy, remembering that they make money on your interest payments, not your principal repayments. If your house then increases in value to $300,000 but you still owe $200,000 then you now owe only 66% of your equity. The bank sees you as a lower risk and encourages you to borrow more to get back up to that sweet spot they had before of 80% - this is a nice tradeoff between risk and reward for the bank. You, the consumer, have just been mailed a new credit card with a 50k limit (hypothetical) and theres a new iMac being released next week, and you really did want to trade in your 5yr old car (see where this is going yet?). Not only is this type of spending given a mighty boost but consumers feel like this house thing has done them very well and suddenly they have the ability to borrow lots more money, why not get a second house and do it all over again? The added demand for investment housing drives prices, throw in some generous government incentives (here and in the USA) and demand is pushed hard, prices grow more and the whole thing feeds back into itself. People feel richer, spend more from their credit cards, buy another house, etc. But what happens if your house 'value' then drops to $240k? The bank now sees you as a high risk, so do the bank's investors, you have negative equity, the bank demands the difference paid back to it or it might take your home. Somehow, nobody believed this would happen. Hopefully you start to see the picture? In Australia we are now facing a slow melt in housing prices which has not yet hurt en masse but it has dried up the credit cards, retails spending has collapsed and everyone is worried about the future. Now to realise where the USA got to you have to also understand that banks were not merely asking for a maximum of 80% owed on the asset, many of them let this figure go to 100%, since hey prices always go up, right? They then in some cases went further and neglected to look into your income and confirm you could even *repay* your loan. Sounds dodgey? This is just the setup. Remember I mentioned the bank's investors? Well banks/smart people basically figured out a clever way of 'dealing with' the risk of a few outliers with bad financial situations by collecting large numbers of home loans into a single entity and selling it on. Loans were graded according to risk and I believe they were even cut up into smaller pieces (10% of your high risk loan assigned to 10 different 'debt objects' with different risk profiles). These 'collateralised debt obligations' were traded from one bank/investment firm to another with everyone happily accepting the risk profiles until eventually nobody knew what risk was where. Think about it like \"\"I'll throw 10 high risk loans, 50 medium risk loans and 40 low risk loans into a pot, stir it up and sell the soup as 'pretty safe' \"\". This all seemed like a very good idea until it gradually became clear just how much of these loans were in the 'extremely stupid high risk' category. This is probably extremely confusing by now, but thats the point, investors could no longer judge how risky an investment in a bank or financial institute was, the market did not correct for any of this until it was all too late. The moral of the story is when people tell you an investment is guaranteed to make you money, you stay away from that investment. And to specifically answer your question you can't solely blame government incentives as you might be able to see, but they play a part in a giant orchestra, there are many factors that drive this sort of stupidity, stupidity being the primary one.\"" }, { "docid": "310218", "title": "", "text": "\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"" }, { "docid": "273187", "title": "", "text": "why does it make sense financially to buy property and become a landlord? Because then your investment generates cash instead of just sitting idle. All taxes, fees and repairs aside it would take almost 21 years before I start making profits. No - your profit will be the rents that you collect (minus expenses). You still have an asset that is worth roughly what you paid for it (and might go up in value), so you don't need to recoup the entire cost of the property before making a profit. Compared to investing the same 150k in an ETF portfolio with conservative 4% in annual returns I would have made around 140k € after taxes in the same 21 years i.e. almost doubled the money. If you charge 600 € / month (and never miss a month of rental income), after 21 years you have made 151k € in rents plus you still have a property. That property is most likely going to be worth more than you paid for it, so you should have at least 300k € in assets. Having said all that, it does NOT always make sense to invest in rental property. Being a landlord can be a hard job, and there are many risks involved that are different that risks in financial investments." }, { "docid": "206298", "title": "", "text": "Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'." }, { "docid": "334919", "title": "", "text": "Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious." }, { "docid": "151203", "title": "", "text": "A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in." } ]

[ { "docid": "292609", "title": "", "text": "The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite" } ]

[ { "docid": "467373", "title": "", "text": "After looking at both S&P GSCI Crude Oil Index Excess Return (INDEXSP:SPGSCLP) and CS VS 3x LC ETN NYSEARCA: UWTI they seem to track well (using Google Finance). I'm not seeing where your statement this ETN loses whether oil is gaining or not holds true. Both have posted a year-over-year loss. In the past year the Crude Oil index has fallen from a high of 494 on October 6, 2014 to a low of 213 as of today October 5th, 2015. So of course the UWTI will lose as well. Please also notice that that, as stated in the prospectus for UWTI: The ETNs are intended to be daily trading tools for sophisticated investors to manage daily trading risks. They are designed t o achieve their stated investment objectives on a daily basis, but their performance over different periods of time can differ significantly fr om their stated daily objectives. The ETNs are riskier than securities that have intermediate or long-term investment objectives, and may not be sui table for investors who plan to hold them for a period other than one day. You might want to look into investing in an ETF for long term investment goals and objectives. Oil ETF List" }, { "docid": "186575", "title": "", "text": "You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations." }, { "docid": "187124", "title": "", "text": "\"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \"\"robo-advisors\"\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\"" }, { "docid": "134005", "title": "", "text": "\"Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled \"\"Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.\"\" This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions. If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all.\"" }, { "docid": "499166", "title": "", "text": "It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail." }, { "docid": "151203", "title": "", "text": "A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in." }, { "docid": "375877", "title": "", "text": "There is really much simpler explanation for the interest rate differences in different countries. It is the interest rate arbitrage. It is a very well explored economic concept, so you can look it up on the Internet, in case you want to know more. 1) Interest rates for the same currency in different countries Basically, as one smart person here pointed out, there is only one price of money in free market economy. It happens, because investors can move their money unrestrictedly anywhere in the World to capitalize on the local interest rates advantage. For instance, if I can take a loan in the USA at 3-4% annual interest and receive 5-6% annual income on my dollar deposit in Russia, I would take a loan in the US and open a deposit in Russia to enjoy a risk free interest rate differential income of 2% (5-6% - 3-4% ~ 2%). So, would any reasonable person. However, in real World very few banks in Russia or anywhere would pay you an an interest rate higher than it can borrow money at. It'd probably lose money if it'd do so. Anyways, the difference between the risk free rate and interest rate on the dollar deposit can be attributed to the risk premium of this particular bank. The higher expected return, the greater risk premium. If there is a positive difference in the interest rates on the dollar deposits in different countries, it will almost entirely accounted for the risk premium. It is generally much riskier to keep money in, say Russian bank, than American. That's why investors want greater return on their dollar deposits in Russian banks than in American. Of course, if you'd want to park your USD in Russian bank you'd also have to consider transaction costs. So, as you may have already guessed, there is no free lunch. 2) Interest rates in different currencies for different countries If we are talking about the interest rates in different sovereign currencies, it is a somewhat similar concept, only there is more risk if you keep money in local currency (risk premium is much higher). Probably, the biggest component of this risk is inflation (that is only attributed to the prices in local currency). For that reason, current interest rates on deposits in Russian Rubles are at 10-12%, but only 1-3% in the US Dollars. An economic concept that discusses this phenomenon in great detail is Interest Rate Parity. Hope this was helpful. P.S. It doesn't look quite realistic that you can get an 8% annual income for USD deposit in Russia with the interest rates in the U.S. being at 1-2%. At present moment, a 30-year mortgage annual interest rate in the US is at ~2-3% and an annual interest rates for dollar deposits in Sberbank (one of the safest Russian banks = very little risk premium) is at 1-3%. So, arbitrage is impossible." }, { "docid": "333755", "title": "", "text": "\"There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity. Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds. Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a \"\"Tesla Bond\"\", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company. Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders]. In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity.\"" }, { "docid": "277666", "title": "", "text": "\"Inflation and stock returns are completely different things The CPI tracks the changes in the prices of a basket of goods a consumer might buy, the S&P 500 tracks the returns earned by investors in the equity of large companies. The two are very different things, and not closely linked. Example: A world without inflation Consider a world in which there was no inflation. Prices are fixed. Should stocks return zero? Certainly not. Companies take raw materials and produce goods and services that have value greater than that of the raw materials. They create new wealth. This wealth becomes profit for the company, which then is passed on to the owners of the company (equityholders) either in the form of dividends or, more commonly, price increases. Example: A world with no inflation and no economic growth Note that I have not implied above that companies have to grow in order for returns to outperform inflation. Total stock returns depend on the current and expected profit of the firm. Firms can remain the same size and continually kick out profits. Total returns will be positive in this environment even if there is no growth and no inflation. If the firms pay the money out as dividends, investors get a cash flow. If they retain these earnings, the value of the firm's equity increases. Total returns take both types of income into account. Technically the S&P 500 is not a total return index, but in our current legal and corporate culture environment, there is a preference for retaining profits rather than paying them out. This causes price increases. Risk bearing In principle, if profit was assured, then investors would bid up stock prices so high that profit would have to compete with the risk-free rate, which often is close to inflation (like, right now). However, profit is not assured. Firm profit swings around over time and constitutes a significant source of risk. We can think of the owners of the firm as being the bondholders and equityholders. These assets are structured such that almost all the profit risk is born by equityholders. We can therefore think of equityholders as being compensated for bearing the risk that would otherwise be born by bondholders. Because equityholders are bearing risk, stock prices must be low enough that stocks have a positive expected return (above the risk-free rate, which is presumably not significantly below inflation). This is true for the same reason that insurance premiums are positive--people have to be compensated for bearing risk. See my answer to this question for a discussion of why risk means we should expect stock prices to increase indefinitely (even if inflation halts). The S&P is not a measure of firm size or value The S&P measures the return earned by investors, not the size of US companies. True, if constituent companies grow and nothing else changes, the index goes up, but if a company shrinks a lot, it gets dropped out, rather than dragging the index down. By the way, please note that dollars \"\"put into\"\" equities are not stuck somewhere. They are passed on to the seller, who then uses it to buy something (even if this is a new equity issuance and the seller is the firm itself). The logic that growth of firms somehow sucks money out of usage is incorrect.\"" }, { "docid": "589088", "title": "", "text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\"" }, { "docid": "169240", "title": "", "text": "You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States." }, { "docid": "90519", "title": "", "text": "\"IPO is \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\". Just so you know. The valuations are done based on the company business model, intellectual property, products, market shares, revenues and profits, assets, and future projections. You know, the usual stuff. Yes, it is. And very frequently done. In fact, I can't think of any company that is now publicly traded, that didn't start this way. The first investor, the one who founds the company, is the first one who invests in it after raising the capital (even if it is from his own bank account to pay the fees for filing the incorporation papers). What is the difference between \"\"normal\"\" investor and \"\"angel\"\"? What do you refer to as \"\"angel\"\"? How is it abnormal to you? Any investor can play a role, depending on the stake he/she has in the company. If the stake is large enough - the role will be significant. If the stake is the majority - the investor will in fact be able major decisions regarding the company. How he bought the stocks, whether through a closed offering, initial investment or on a stock exchange - doesn't matter at all. You may have heard of the term \"\"angels\"\" with regards to high-tech start up companies. These are private investors (not funds) that invest their own money in start ups at very early stages. They're called \"\"angels\"\" because they invest at stages at which it is very hard for entrepreneurs to raise money: there's no product, no real business, usually it is a stage of just an idea or a patent with maybe initial prototype and some preliminary business analysis. These people gamble, in a sense, and each investment is very small (relatively to their wealth) - tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes a hundred or two thousands, and they make a lot of these. Some may fail and they lose the money, but those that succeed - bring very high returns. Imagine investing 10K for 5% stake at Google 15 years ago. Those people are as investors as anyone else, and yes, depending on their stake in the company, they can influence its decisions.\"" }, { "docid": "216757", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"" }, { "docid": "370290", "title": "", "text": "\"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"" }, { "docid": "66453", "title": "", "text": "\"The pros and cons of investing in a closed end fund both stem from the fact that the price per share is likely to differ from the net asset value (NAV) of the underlying assets. That could work to your advantage if the fund is selling for LESS than NAV, or at a discount. Then you get the \"\"benefit of the bargain\"\" and hope to sell the shares in the future for \"\"par\"\" or even a premium (MORE than NAV). On the other hand, if you buy such a fund at a premium, you stand to have a RELATIVE loss if the value of the fund goes back to par (or a discount) compared to NAV. That's because a closed end fund has a FIXED number of shares, with the assets continually being reinvested. In essence, you are \"\"buying out\"\" an existing shareholder of the fund at a price determined by supply and demand. This differs from an OPEN end fund, in which your contribution creates NEW shares (all other things being equal). Then the fund, has to invest YOUR money (and charges you a fee for the service) on exactly a pro rata basis with other investors in the fund, meaning that you will enter and exit such a fund at \"\"par.\"\" In either case, your return depends mainly on the performance of the underlying assets. But there are premium/discount issues for investing in a closed end fund.\"" }, { "docid": "17823", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"" }, { "docid": "199237", "title": "", "text": "\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \"\"average out\"\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\"" }, { "docid": "183898", "title": "", "text": "It is true that this is possible, however, it's very remote in the case of the large and reputable fund companies such as Vanguard. FDIC insurance protects against precisely this for bank accounts, but mutual funds and ETFs do not have an equivalent to FDIC insurance. One thing that does help you in the case of a mutual fund or ETF is that you indirectly (through the fund) own actual assets. In a cash account at a bank, you have a promise from the bank to pay, and then the bank can go off and use your money to make loans. You don't in any sense own the bank's loans. With a fund, the fund company cannot (legally) take your money out of the fund, except to pay the expense ratio. They have to use your money to buy stocks, bonds, or whatever the fund invests in. Those assets are then owned by the fund. Legally, a mutual fund is a special kind of company defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, and is a separate company from the investment advisor (such as Vanguard): http://www.sec.gov/answers/mfinvco.htm Funds have their own boards, and in principle a fund board can even fire the company advising the fund, though this is not likely since boards aren't usually independent. (a quick google found this article for more, maybe someone can find a better one: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mutual-fund-independent-board-rule-all-but-dead) If Vanguard goes under, the funds could continue to exist and get a new adviser, or could be liquidated with investors receiving whatever the assets are worth. Of course, all this legal stuff doesn't help you with outright fraud. If a fund's adviser says it bought the S&P 500, but really some guy bought himself a yacht, Madoff-style, then you have a problem. But a huge well-known ETF has auditors, tons of different employees, lots of brokerage and exchange traffic, etc. so to me at least it's tough to imagine a risk here. With a small fund company with just a few people - and there are lots of these! - then there's more risk, and you'd want to carefully look at what independent agent holds their assets, who their auditors are, and so forth. With regular mutual funds (not ETFs) there are more issues with diversifying across fund companies: With ETFs, there probably isn't much downside to diversifying since you could buy them all from one brokerage account. Maybe it even happens naturally if you pick the best ETFs you can find. Personally, I would just pick the best ETFs and not worry about advisor diversity. Update: maybe also deserving a mention are exchange-traded notes (ETNs). An ETN's legal structure is more like the bank account, minus the FDIC insurance of course. It's an IOU from the company that runs the ETN, where they promise to pay back the value of some index. There's no investment company as with a fund, and therefore you don't own a share of any actual assets. If the ETN's sponsor went bankrupt, you would indeed have a problem, much more so than if an ETF's sponsor went bankrupt." }, { "docid": "369031", "title": "", "text": "If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership. Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying." } ]

[ { "docid": "196304", "title": "", "text": "In a perfect market, share prices are by definition a perfect reflection of the true value of a share. Hence, you always get $10 for a share that's worth that much. In reality, the market is imperfect. Prices are somewhat of an average of all different estimates, and there's a cost-of-trading margin between sales and buy prices. Hence, in a perfect market it doesn't matter whether you have a stop loss order at $9.00. That just trades your stock worth $9 for cash worth the same $9. In an imperfect market, that trade nets you less. Furthermore, is risk a linear function of money? Perhaps not, if you bought on margin, need to lend extra and your interest rate increases with the extra credit demand." } ]

[ { "docid": "199493", "title": "", "text": "Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies." }, { "docid": "436904", "title": "", "text": "This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500. So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country. However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals. By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk. Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification. Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment. Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making. For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible. Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee." }, { "docid": "549435", "title": "", "text": "An accountant should be able to advise on the tax consequences of different classes of investments/assets/debts (e.g. RRSP, TFSA, mortgage). But I would not ask an accountant which specific securities to hold in these vehicles, or what asset allocation (in terms of geography, capitalization, or class (equity vs fixed income vs derivatives vs structured notes etc). An investment advisor would be better suited to matching your investments to your risk tolerance." }, { "docid": "499060", "title": "", "text": "\"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender \"\"such as a broker\"\" , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals.\"" }, { "docid": "39819", "title": "", "text": "\"Old question I know, but I have some thoughts to share. Your title and question say two different things. \"\"Better off\"\" should mean maximizing your ex-ante utility. Most of your question seems to describe maximizing your expected return, as do the simulation exercises here. Those are two different things because risk is implicitly ignored by what you call \"\"the pure mathematical answer.\"\" The expected return on your investments needs to exceed the cost of your debt because interest you pay is risk-free while your investments are risky. To solve this problem, consider the portfolio problem where paying down debt is the risk-free asset and consider the set of optimal solutions. You will get a capital allocation line between the solution where you put everything into paying down debt and the optimal/tangent portfolio from the set of risky assets. In order to determine where on that line someone is, you must know their utility function and risk parameters. You also must know the parameters of the investable universe, which we don't.\"" }, { "docid": "10171", "title": "", "text": "\"To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs. Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no \"\"right\"\" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation.\"" }, { "docid": "582736", "title": "", "text": "In Australia the ATO can determine if you are considered a shareholder or a share trader. The ATO defines a shareholder as: A shareholder is a person who holds shares for the purpose of earning income from dividends and similar receipts. Whilst they define a share trader as: A share trader is a person who carries out business activities for the purpose of earning income from buying and selling shares. To find out the differences between them you can refer to the following link describing The difference between a share trader and a shareholder. The ATO also describes: To be classed as a share trader, you may be asked to provide evidence that demonstrates you are carrying on a business of share trading, for example: the purchase of shares on a regular basis through a regular or routine method a trading plan use of share trading techniques in managing your share acquisitions, such as decisions based on thorough analysis of relevant market information a contingency plan in the event of a major shift in the market. Losses incurred in the business of share trading are treated the same as any other losses from business. If your activities change from investor to trader, your investment changes from a CGT (capital gains tax) asset to trading stock. This can trigger CGT event for any investments you currently hold as they change from CGT assets to trading stock. Once you have changed over to a trader you will not be entitled to the 50% CGT discount for stocks held over 12 months. You will, however, be able to count any paper losses at the end of Financial Year to reduce your other income." }, { "docid": "453624", "title": "", "text": "\"Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money. In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money. They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own. Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time. That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold. What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard. By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment. Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide? A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a \"\"great apartment to invest in?\"\", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years? The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist. There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate. Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate. (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk. They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan. Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank. You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are. They get less return if things go really well.\"" }, { "docid": "438302", "title": "", "text": "\"Although this has been touched upon in comments, I think the following line from the currently accepted answer shows the biggest issue: There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. The reality is that the difference isn't that clear at all. Tens of comments have been written arguing in both directions and looking around the internet entire essays have been written arguing both positions. The underlying emotion that seems to shape this discussion primarily is whether investing (especially in the stock market) is a form of gambling. People who do invest in this way tend to get relatively emotional whenever someone argues that this is a form of gambling, as gambling is considered a negative thing. The simple reality of human communication is that words can be ambiguous, and the way investors will use the words 'investments' and 'gambles' will differ from the way it is used by gamblers, and once again different from the way it's commonly used. What I definitely think is made clear by all the different discussions however is that there is no single distinctive trait that allows us to differentiate investing and gambling. The result of this is that when you take dictionary definitions for both terms you will likely end up including lottery tickets as a valid form of investment. That still however leaves us with a situation where we have two terms - with a strong overlap - which have a distinctive meaning in communication and the original question whether buying lottery tickets is an investment. Over on investorguide.com there is an absolutely amazing strongly recommended essay which explores countless of different traits in search of a difference between investing and gambling, and they came up with the following two definitions: Investing: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results.\"\" Gambling: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results.\"\" The very interesting thing about those definitions is that they capture very well the way those terms are used by most people, and they even acknowledge that a lot of 'investors' are gambling, and that a few gamblers are 'investing' (read the essay for more on that). And this fits well with the way those two concepts are understood by the public. So in those definitions normally buying a lottery ticket would indeed not be an investment, but if we take for example Vadim's operation example If you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one. this can suddenly change the perception and turn 'gambling' into 'high-risk investing'.\"" }, { "docid": "304398", "title": "", "text": "Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here." }, { "docid": "254783", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't focus too much on dividends itself; at the end of the day what matters is total gain, because you can convert capital gain into income by selling your assets (they have different tax implications, but generally capital gains tend to be more tax efficient). I think the more important question is how much volatility you can tolerate. Since your investment horizon is short & your risk tolerance is low (as in if you suddenly get much lower income than you planned from your investment you'll be in trouble), you probably want assets that have low volatility. To achieve that, I'd consider the following if I were you: tl;dr If I were you I'd just hold a general investment portfolio with a lower risk profile rather than focusing on dividend generating assets." }, { "docid": "420978", "title": "", "text": "Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof. All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS. You are loaning money. Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk. Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back. In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate. This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time. The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts. In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation." }, { "docid": "377166", "title": "", "text": "You should evaluate where to put your money based on when you need-by-date is. If you need it in the next 5 years, I'd essentially keep it in cash or no-risk savings accounts/cds, money market accounts, etc. If you need it further than 5 years from now, invest for the future with some form of asset allocation that matches your risk tolerance. Research asset allocation and decide how to divide amongst different types of investments. **Retirement accounts have earnings requirements and maximum contribution limits." }, { "docid": "43683", "title": "", "text": "If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities." }, { "docid": "513281", "title": "", "text": "\"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"" }, { "docid": "369031", "title": "", "text": "If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership. Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying." }, { "docid": "587187", "title": "", "text": "In Australia we have a 50% capital gain discount if you hold the asset for more than 12 months, whether it is in shares, property or other assets. The main reason is to encourage people to invest long-term instead of speculating or trading. The government sees speculation or short term trading as more risky than long term investing for the everyday mum and dad investor, so rewards people it sees taking the lower risk long term view. In my opinion, long term investing, short term trading and speculation can all be risky for someone who is unedutated in the financial markets, and the first rule of investing should be to consider the asset itself and not the tax implications." }, { "docid": "597295", "title": "", "text": "\"Please note that the following Graham Rating below corresponds to five years: Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 50.00% Benjamin Graham - once known as The Dean of Wall Street - was a scholar and financial analyst who mentored legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Walter J. Schloss. Buffett describes Graham's book - The Intelligent Investor - as \"\"by far the best book about investing ever written\"\" (in its preface). Graham's first recommended strategy - for casual investors - was to invest in Index stocks. For more serious investors, Graham recommended three different categories of stocks - Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV - and 17 qualitative and quantitative rules for identifying them. For advanced investors, Graham described various \"\"special situations\"\". The first requires almost no analysis, and is easily accomplished today with a good S&P500 Index fund. The last requires more than the average level of ability and experience. Such stocks are also not amenable to impartial algorithmic analysis, and require a case-specific approach. But Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV stocks can be reliably detected by today's data-mining software, and offer a great avenue for accurate automated analysis and profitable investment. For example, given below are the actual Graham ratings for International Business Machines Corp (IBM), with no adjustments other than those for inflation. Defensive Graham investment requires that all ratings be 100% or more. Enterprising Graham investment requires minimum ratings of - N/A, 75%, 90%, 50%, 5%, N/A and 137%. International Business Machines Corp - Graham Ratings Sales | Size (100% ⇒ $500 Million): 18,558.60% Current Assets ÷ [2 x Current Liabilities]: 62.40% Net Current Assets ÷ Long Term Debt: 28.00% Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 100.00% Dividend Record (100% ⇒ 20 Years): 100.00% Earnings Growth (100% ⇒ 30% Growth): 172.99% Graham Number ÷ Previous Close: 35.81% Not all stocks failing Graham's rules are necessarily bad investments. They may fall under \"\"special situations\"\". Graham's rules are also extremely selective. Graham designed and backtested his framework for over 50 years, to deliver the best possible long-term results. Even when stocks don't clear them, Graham's rules give a clear quantifiable measure of a stock's margin of safety. Thank you.\"" }, { "docid": "55920", "title": "", "text": "You have plenty of good answers, but I want to add something that might help you grow your intuition on stocks. There are a lot of differences between the example I am going to give and how the stock market actually runs, but the basic concepts are the same. Lets say your friend asks you if he can borrow some money to start up a company, in exchange you will have some ownership in this company. You have essentially just bought yourself some stock. Now as your friend starts to grow, he is doing well, but he needs more cash to buy assets in order to grow the company more. He is forced with an option, either give you some of the profits, or buy these assets sooner. You decide you don't really need the money right now, and think he can do a lot better with spending the money to buy stuff. This is essentially the same as a company electing to not pay dividends, but instead invest into the future. You as a stock holder are fine with it since you know the money is going toward investing in the future. Even if you never get paid a dividend, as a company grows, you can then turn around and sell the stock to someone else for more money then you gave originally. Of course you always take the risk of having the company failing and loosing some if not all of your investment, but that is just the risk of the market." } ]

[ { "docid": "396038", "title": "", "text": "Capping the upside while playing with unlimited downside is a less disciplined investment strategy vis-a-vis a stop-loss driven strategy. Whether it is less risky or high risky also depends on the fluctuations of the stock and not just long-term movements. For example, your stop losses might get triggered because of a momentary sharp decline in stock price due to a large volume transaction (esp more so in small-cap stocks). Although, the stock price might recover from the sudden price drop pretty soon causing a seemingly preventable loss. That being said, playing with stop losses is always considered a safer strategy. It may not increase your profits but can certainly cap your losses." } ]

[ { "docid": "90519", "title": "", "text": "\"IPO is \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\". Just so you know. The valuations are done based on the company business model, intellectual property, products, market shares, revenues and profits, assets, and future projections. You know, the usual stuff. Yes, it is. And very frequently done. In fact, I can't think of any company that is now publicly traded, that didn't start this way. The first investor, the one who founds the company, is the first one who invests in it after raising the capital (even if it is from his own bank account to pay the fees for filing the incorporation papers). What is the difference between \"\"normal\"\" investor and \"\"angel\"\"? What do you refer to as \"\"angel\"\"? How is it abnormal to you? Any investor can play a role, depending on the stake he/she has in the company. If the stake is large enough - the role will be significant. If the stake is the majority - the investor will in fact be able major decisions regarding the company. How he bought the stocks, whether through a closed offering, initial investment or on a stock exchange - doesn't matter at all. You may have heard of the term \"\"angels\"\" with regards to high-tech start up companies. These are private investors (not funds) that invest their own money in start ups at very early stages. They're called \"\"angels\"\" because they invest at stages at which it is very hard for entrepreneurs to raise money: there's no product, no real business, usually it is a stage of just an idea or a patent with maybe initial prototype and some preliminary business analysis. These people gamble, in a sense, and each investment is very small (relatively to their wealth) - tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes a hundred or two thousands, and they make a lot of these. Some may fail and they lose the money, but those that succeed - bring very high returns. Imagine investing 10K for 5% stake at Google 15 years ago. Those people are as investors as anyone else, and yes, depending on their stake in the company, they can influence its decisions.\"" }, { "docid": "597295", "title": "", "text": "\"Please note that the following Graham Rating below corresponds to five years: Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 50.00% Benjamin Graham - once known as The Dean of Wall Street - was a scholar and financial analyst who mentored legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Walter J. Schloss. Buffett describes Graham's book - The Intelligent Investor - as \"\"by far the best book about investing ever written\"\" (in its preface). Graham's first recommended strategy - for casual investors - was to invest in Index stocks. For more serious investors, Graham recommended three different categories of stocks - Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV - and 17 qualitative and quantitative rules for identifying them. For advanced investors, Graham described various \"\"special situations\"\". The first requires almost no analysis, and is easily accomplished today with a good S&P500 Index fund. The last requires more than the average level of ability and experience. Such stocks are also not amenable to impartial algorithmic analysis, and require a case-specific approach. But Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV stocks can be reliably detected by today's data-mining software, and offer a great avenue for accurate automated analysis and profitable investment. For example, given below are the actual Graham ratings for International Business Machines Corp (IBM), with no adjustments other than those for inflation. Defensive Graham investment requires that all ratings be 100% or more. Enterprising Graham investment requires minimum ratings of - N/A, 75%, 90%, 50%, 5%, N/A and 137%. International Business Machines Corp - Graham Ratings Sales | Size (100% ⇒ $500 Million): 18,558.60% Current Assets ÷ [2 x Current Liabilities]: 62.40% Net Current Assets ÷ Long Term Debt: 28.00% Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 100.00% Dividend Record (100% ⇒ 20 Years): 100.00% Earnings Growth (100% ⇒ 30% Growth): 172.99% Graham Number ÷ Previous Close: 35.81% Not all stocks failing Graham's rules are necessarily bad investments. They may fall under \"\"special situations\"\". Graham's rules are also extremely selective. Graham designed and backtested his framework for over 50 years, to deliver the best possible long-term results. Even when stocks don't clear them, Graham's rules give a clear quantifiable measure of a stock's margin of safety. Thank you.\"" }, { "docid": "128048", "title": "", "text": "\"When you invest in an S&P500 index fund that is priced in USD, the only major risk you bear is the risk associated with the equity that comprises the index, since both the equities and the index fund are priced in USD. The fund in your question, however, is priced in EUR. For a fund like this to match the performance of the S&P500, which is priced in USD, as closely as possible, it needs to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. If the fund simply converted EUR to USD then invested in an S&P500 index fund priced in USD, the EUR-priced fund may fail to match the USD-priced fund because of exchange rate fluctuations. Here is a simple example demonstrating why hedging is necessary. I assumed the current value of the USD-priced S&P500 index fund is 1,600 USD/share. The exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR. If you purchase one share of this index using EUR, you would pay 1230.77 EUR/share: If the S&P500 increases 10% to 1760 USD/share and the exchange rate remains unchanged, the value of the your investment in the EUR fund also increases by 10% (both sides of the equation are multiplied by 1.1): However, the currency risk comes into play when the EUR/USD exchange rate changes. Take the 10% increase in the price of the USD index occurring in tandem with an appreciation of the EUR to 1.4 USD/EUR: Although the USD-priced index gained 10%, the appreciation of the EUR means that the EUR value of your investment is almost unchanged from the first equation. For investments priced in EUR that invest in securities priced in USD, the presence of this additional currency risk mandates the use of a hedge if the indexes are going to track. The fund you linked to uses swap contracts, which I discuss in detail below, to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. Since these derivatives aren't free, the cost of the hedge is included in the expenses of the fund and may result in differences between the S&P500 Index and the S&P 500 Euro Hedged Index. Also, it's important to realize that any time you invest in securities that are priced in a different currency than your own, you take on currency risk whether or not the investments aim to track indexes. This holds true even for securities that trade on an exchange in your local currency, like ADR's or GDR's. I wrote an answer that goes through a simple example in a similar fashion to the one above in that context, so you can read that for more information on currency risk in that context. There are several ways to investors, be they institutional or individual, can hedge against currency risk. iShares offers an ETF that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index and uses a over-the-counter currency swap contract called a month forward FX contract to hedge against the associated currency risk. In these contracts, two parties agree to swap some amount of one currency for another amount of another currency, at some time in the future. This allows both parties to effectively lock in an exchange rate for a given time period (a month in the case of the iShares ETF) and therefore protect themselves against exchange rate fluctuations in that period. There are other forms of currency swaps, equity swaps, etc. that could be used to hedge against currency risk. In general, two parties agree to swap one quantity, like a EUR cash flow, payments of a fixed interest rate, etc. for another quantity, like a USD cash flow, payments based on a floating interest rate, etc. In many cases these are over-the-counter transactions, there isn't necessarily a standardized definition. For example, if the European manager of a fund that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index is holding euros and wants to lock in an effective exchange rate of 1.4 USD/EUR (above the current exchange rate), he may find another party that is holding USD and wants to lock in the respective exchange rate of 0.71 EUR/USD. The other party could be an American fund manager that manages a USD-price fund that tracks the FTSE. By swapping USD and EUR, both parties can, at a price, lock in their desired exchange rates. I want to clear up something else in your question too. It's not correct that the \"\"S&P 500 is completely unrelated to the Euro.\"\" Far from it. There are many cases in which the EUR/USD exchange rate and the level of the S&P500 index could be related. For example: Troublesome economic news in Europe could cause the euro to depreciate against the dollar as European investors flee to safety, e.g. invest in Treasury bills. However, this economic news could also cause US investors to feel that the global economy won't recover as soon as hoped, which could affect the S&P500. If the euro appreciated against the dollar, for whatever reason, this could increase profits for US businesses that earn part of their profits in Europe. If a US company earns 1 million EUR and the exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR, the company earns 1.3 million USD. If the euro appreciates against the dollar to 1.4 USD/EUR in the next quarter and the company still earns 1 million EUR, they now earn 1.4 million USD. Even without additional sales, the US company earned a higher USD profit, which is reflected on their financial statements and could increase their share price (thus affecting the S&P500). Combining examples 1 and 2, if a US company earns some of its profits in Europe and a recession hits in the EU, two things could happen simultaneously. A) The company's sales decline as European consumers scale back their spending, and B) the euro depreciates against the dollar as European investors sell euros and invest in safer securities denominated in other currencies (USD or not). The company suffers a loss in profits both from decreased sales and the depreciation of the EUR. There are many more factors that could lead to correlation between the euro and the S&P500, or more generally, the European and American economies. The balance of trade, investor and consumer confidence, exposure of banks in one region to sovereign debt in another, the spread of asset/mortgage-backed securities from US financial firms to European banks, companies, municipalities, etc. all play a role. One example of this last point comes from this article, which includes an interesting line: Among the victims of America’s subprime crisis are eight municipalities in Norway, which lost a total of $125 million through subprime mortgage-related investments. Long story short, these municipalities had mortgage-backed securities in their investment portfolios that were derived from, far down the line, subprime mortgages on US homes. I don't know the specific cities, but it really demonstrates how interconnected the world's economies are when an American family's payment on their subprime mortgage in, say, Chicago, can end up backing a derivative investment in the investment portfolio of, say, Hammerfest, Norway.\"" }, { "docid": "369031", "title": "", "text": "If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership. Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying." }, { "docid": "30250", "title": "", "text": "\"This is really two questions about yield and contents. Content As others have noted, an annuity is a contractual obligation, not a portfolio contained within an investment product per se. The primary difference between whether an annuity is fixed or variable is what the issuer is guaranteeing and how much risk/reward you are sharing in. Generally speaking, the holdings of an issuer are influenced by the average \"\"duration\"\" of the payments. However, you can ascertain the assets that \"\"back\"\" that promise by looking at, for example, the holdings of a large insurance or securities firm. That is why issuers are generally rated as to their financial strength and ability to meet their obligations. A number of the market failures you mentioned were in part caused by the failure of these ratings to represent the true financial strength of the firm. Yield As to the second question of how they can offer a competitive rate, there are at least several reasons (I am assuming an immediate annuity) : 1) Return/Depletion of Principal The 7% you are being quoted is the percent of your principal that will be returned to you each year, not the rate of return being earned by the issuer. If you invest $100 in the market personally and get a 5% return, you have $105. However, the annuity's issuer is also returning part of your principal to you each year in your payment, as they don't return your principal when you eventually die. Because of this, they can offer you more each year than they really make in the market. What makes a Ponzi scheme different is that they are also paying out your principal (usually to others), but lie to you by telling you it's still in your account. :) 2) The Time Value of Money A promise to pay you $500 tomorrow costs less than $500 today A fixed annuity promises to pay you a certain amount of money each year. This can be represented as a rate of return calculated based on how much you have to pay to get that annual payment, but it is important to remember that the first payment will be worth substantially more in real purchasing power than the last payment you get. The longer you live, the less your fixed payment is worth in real terms due to inflation! In short, the rate of return has to be discounted for inflation, it is not a \"\"real\"\" rate of return. In other words, if you give me $500 today and I promise to pay you $100 for the next 5 years, I am making money not only because I can invest the money between now and then, but also because $100 will be worth less five years from now than it is today. With annuities, if you want your payment to rise in step with inflation, you have to pay more for that (a LOT more!). These are the two main reasons - here are a few smaller ones: 3) A very long Time Horizon If the stock market or another asset class is performing well/poorly, the issuer can often afford to wait much longer to buy or sell than an individual, and can take better advantage of historical highs and lows over the long term. 4) \"\"Big Boy\"\" investing A large, financially sound issuer can afford to take risks that an individual cannot, such as in very large or illiquid assets, such as a private company (a la Warren Buffet). 5) Efficiencies of scale Institutional investors have a number of legal advantages over individuals, which I won't discuss in detail here. However, they exist. Large issuers are also often in related business (insurance, mutual funds) such that they can deal in large volumes and form an internal clearinghouse (i.e. if I want to buy Facebook and you want to sell it, they can just move the stock around without doing any trading), with the result that their costs of trading are lower than those of an individual. Hope that helps!\"" }, { "docid": "7748", "title": "", "text": "\"For your first question, the general guidelines I've seen recommended are as follows: As to your second question, portfolio management is something you should familiarize yourself with. If you trust it to other people, don't be surprised when they make \"\"mistakes\"\". Remember, they get paid regardless of whether you make money. Consider how much any degree of risk will affect you. When starting out, your contributions make up most of the growth of your accounts; now is the time when you can most afford to take higher risk for higher payouts (still limiting your risk as much as possible, of course). A 10% loss on a portfolio of $50k can be replaced with a good year's contributions. Once your portfolio has grown to a much larger sum, it will be time to dial back the risk and focus on preserving your capital. When choosing investments, always treat your porfolio as a whole - including non-retirement assets (other investment accounts, savings, even your house). Don't put too many eggs from every account into the same basket, or you'll find that 30% of your porfolio is a single investment. Also consider that some investments have different tax consequences, and you can leverage the properties of each account to offset that.\"" }, { "docid": "10171", "title": "", "text": "\"To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs. Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no \"\"right\"\" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation.\"" }, { "docid": "595981", "title": "", "text": "Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation." }, { "docid": "502495", "title": "", "text": "Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk." }, { "docid": "134005", "title": "", "text": "\"Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled \"\"Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.\"\" This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions. If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all.\"" }, { "docid": "274945", "title": "", "text": "Investors hungry for returns are piling back into securities once tarnished by the financial crisis. Complex structured investments developed a bad reputation during the credit crunch. Ten years later, investors seeking yield are overcoming their skepticism and buying into securities that rely on financial engineering to juice returns. Volumes of CLOs, or collateralized loan obligations, hit a record $247 billion in the first nine months of the year, according to data from J.P. Morgan Chase JPM 1.59%▲ &amp; Co. Fueled by a wave of refinancings and nearly $100 billion in new deals, that far outpaces their recent full-year high of $151 billion in 2014 and the precrisis peak of $136 billion in 2006. The CLO boom is the latest sign of the ferocious hunt for yield permeating markets. Stellar performance over the past year has made CLOs increasingly hard to ignore for investors like insurance companies and pension funds. CLOs carve up a portfolio of bank loans to highly indebted companies into slices of securities with different levels of risk. The securities at the bottom of the CLO stack offer the highest potential source of returns, but they are also the first to absorb losses if there are defaults in the underlying loan portfolio. The more senior slices offer lower returns but are more insulated from losses. CLOs are often lumped together with other alphabet-soup acronyms of the financial crisis, such as more toxic CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations. But CLOs actually weathered the financial crisis well: Investors who bought at the top of the market in 2007 suffered paper losses, but there were no defaults at all for the highest-rated securities. That track record has helped boost CLOs’ appeal for investors with lingering concerns over scooping up more complex investments. . Taking off / Global CLO volumes “The demand for things like CLOs….is extraordinary,” said Rick Rieder, chief investment officer for global fixed income at BlackRock Inc. CLOs are one of the largest demand sources for the leveraged loan market, which has also been booming this year. Volumes of leveraged loans, often used by private-equity firms to fund buyouts, are on track to surpass their 2007 record, according to LCD, a unit of S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. At the same time, investors have voiced concerns about companies’ rising leverage level, and weaker creditor protections. Within a CLO are different risk profiles: Investors in the most senior, AAA-rated piece of debt get paid first and are the most insulated from losses if defaults rise in the underlying loan portfolio. They also receive the skinniest returns. Slices of debt further down receive higher returns, but will suffer losses if defaults spike. At the bottom sits the equity tranche, the first loss-absorber and last to get paid, but the highest potential source of returns. A 2014 report from Standard &amp; Poor’s Ratings Services stated that AAA-rated and AA-rated CLO tranches incurred no losses at all between 1994 and 2013. Loss rates for lower-rated tranches, meanwhile, were low—just 1.1% for B-rated securities over that period. . Flying High / Market returns since J.P. Morgan recommended buying CLOs last July That doesn’t prevent some conservative investors from conflating the CLOs with the now-infamous CDOs, many of which were linked to subprime mortgages and spread and amplified losses in the U.S. housing market. One breed of CDOs are on a comeback path of their own, with more investors returning to them during an aging bull market. Many people were “burnt by these acronyms from the crisis,” said Zak Summerscale, head of credit fund management for Europe and Asia Pacific at Intermediate Capital Group . He is currently recommending that clients buy senior CLO tranches over investment-grade bonds. CLOs, like other types of securitizations, have been subject to greater regulation since the financial crisis. That includes forcing funds that manage a CLO to retain 5% of the securities, in an effort to align incentives with investors. That has “attracted additional capital into the market,” said Mike Rosenberg, a principal at alternative investment manager Tetragon. Assets under management in the “loan participation” sector—a proxy for funds that invest in CLOs—have grown 21% this year to $206 billion, according to Thomson Reuters Lipper. The pickup in CLOs has been a boon to banks weathering declines in trading revenues in the current low-volatility environment. Revenue from CLO-related activity at the top 12 global investment banks more than doubled over the first half of 2017 from a year earlier to almost $1 billion, according to financial consultancy Coalition. CLO investors have been handsomely rewarded in recent months. J.P. Morgan strategist Rishad Ahluwalia recommended clients buy CLOs last July as he thought they looked too cheap. Between then and the end of September, BB-rated CLO tranches returned 25.4%, compared with a 25.2% return for the technology-oriented Nasdaq stock index, according to his calculations. “CLOs have been an absolute home run,” said Mr. Ahluwalia, though he added such chunky returns aren’t repeatable. Analysts say CLOs got beaten down last year following a series of troubles in the underlying loan market, including distress in the energy sector. Some analysts think the strong rally in CLO tranches since then should give investors pause; others think the market has further to run. Renaud Champion, head of credit strategies at Paris-based hedge fund La Française Investment Solutions, likes AAA-rated CLO tranches but with a twist: leverage. Mr. Champion says he buys senior European CLO tranches and borrows money against them to increase the size of his position between five and 10 times. That can amplify gains—and losses—significantly. “The difference between now and a year ago is the availability of leverage,” he said. Bankers say only a small proportion of CLO buyers use leverage and emphasize that trades are subject to daily margin calls. That means investors have to post cash to cover mark-to-market losses on a position, which in turn limits how much they are willing to borrow. “The leverage in the system today is a fraction compared to precrisis,” said J.P. Morgan’s Mr. Ahluwalia. Write to Christopher Whittall at christopher.whittall@wsj.com Appeared in the October 23, 2017, print edition as 'Crisis-Era Securities Regain Investors’ Favor.'" }, { "docid": "589088", "title": "", "text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\"" }, { "docid": "83183", "title": "", "text": "The Securities Investor Protection Corporation is roughly analogous to the FDIC for investments. There are some important differences like a lack of 100% guarantee you get all of your funds back. The SIPC understands you invested knowing there was some risk, and therefore you take that same risk in getting your money from a failed brokerage. However there is still a level of commitment and trust that lessen the risk of investing in the wrong place. Also, do not typo the acronym at your work computer. In the US (and perhaps elsewhere) it is a racist term, and you are likely to get some bad search results. http://www.sipc.org/how/brochure.cfm" }, { "docid": "420978", "title": "", "text": "Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof. All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS. You are loaning money. Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk. Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back. In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate. This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time. The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts. In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation." }, { "docid": "55920", "title": "", "text": "You have plenty of good answers, but I want to add something that might help you grow your intuition on stocks. There are a lot of differences between the example I am going to give and how the stock market actually runs, but the basic concepts are the same. Lets say your friend asks you if he can borrow some money to start up a company, in exchange you will have some ownership in this company. You have essentially just bought yourself some stock. Now as your friend starts to grow, he is doing well, but he needs more cash to buy assets in order to grow the company more. He is forced with an option, either give you some of the profits, or buy these assets sooner. You decide you don't really need the money right now, and think he can do a lot better with spending the money to buy stuff. This is essentially the same as a company electing to not pay dividends, but instead invest into the future. You as a stock holder are fine with it since you know the money is going toward investing in the future. Even if you never get paid a dividend, as a company grows, you can then turn around and sell the stock to someone else for more money then you gave originally. Of course you always take the risk of having the company failing and loosing some if not all of your investment, but that is just the risk of the market." }, { "docid": "134542", "title": "", "text": "\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"" }, { "docid": "186575", "title": "", "text": "You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations." }, { "docid": "17823", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"" }, { "docid": "334919", "title": "", "text": "Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious." } ]

[ { "docid": "214003", "title": "", "text": "\"For personal investing, and speculative/ highly risky securities (\"\"wasting assets\"\", which is exactly what options are), it is better to think in terms of sunk costs. Don't chase this trade, trying to make your money back. You should minimize your loss. Unwind the position now, while there is still some remaining value in those call options, and take a short-term loss. Or, you could try this. Let's say you own an exchange traded call option on a listed stock (very general case). I don't know how much time remains before the option's expiration date. Be that as it may, I could suggest this to effect a \"\"recovery\"\". You'll be long the call and short the stock. This is called a delta hedge, as you would be delta trading the stock. Delta refers to short-term price volatility. In other words, you'll short a single large block of the stock, then buy shares, in small increments, whenever the market drops slightly, on an intra-day basis. When the market price of the stock rises incrementally, you'll sell a few shares. Back and forth, in response to short-term market price moves, while maintaining a static \"\"hedge ratio\"\". As your original call option gets closer to maturity, roll it over into the next available contract, either one-month, or preferably three-month, time to expiration. If you don't want to, or can't, borrow the underlying stock to short, you could do a synthetic short. A synthetic short is a combination of a long put and a short call, whose pay-off replicates the short stock payoff. I personally would never purchase an unhedged option or warrant. But since that is what you own right now, you have two choices: Get out, or dig in deeper, with the realization that you are doing a lot of work just to trade your way back to a net zero P&L. *While you can make a profit using this sort of strategy, I'm not certain if that is within the scope of the money.stachexchange.com website.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "221881", "title": "", "text": "\"Covered calls, that is where the writer owns the underlying security, aren't the only type of calls one can write. Writing \"\"uncovered calls,\"\" wherein one does NOT own the underlying, are a way to profit from a price drop. For example, write the call for a $5 premium, then when the underlying price drops, buy it back for $4, and pocket the $1 profit.\"" }, { "docid": "140371", "title": "", "text": "To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above." }, { "docid": "207253", "title": "", "text": "According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised. This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place. Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders. However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.)" }, { "docid": "453582", "title": "", "text": "\"Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices. Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment. Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is \"\"in the money\"\" or \"\"out of the money\"\" and by how much.\"" }, { "docid": "105231", "title": "", "text": "The important thing to realize is, what would you do, if you didn't have the call? If you didn't have call options, but you wanted to have a position in that particular stock, you would have to actually purchase it. But, having purchased the shares, you are at risk to lose up to the entire value of them-- if the company folded or something like that. A call option reduces the potential loss, since you are at worst only out the cost of the call, and you also lose a little on the upside, since you had to pay for the call, which will certainly have some premium over buying the underlying share directly. Risk can be defined as reducing the variability of outcomes, so since calls/shorts etc. reduce potential losses and also slightly reduce potential gains, they pretty much by definition reduce risk. It's also worth noting, that when you buy a call, the seller could also be seen as hedging the risk of price decreases while also guaranteeing that they have a buyer at a certain price. So, they may be more concerned about having cash flow at the right time, while at the same time reducing the cost of the share losing in value than they are losing the potential upside if you do exercise the option. Shorts work in the same way but opposite direction to calls, and forwards and futures contracts are more about cash flow management: making sure you have the right amount of money in the right currency at the right time regardless of changes in the costs of raw materials or currencies. While either party may lose on the transaction due to price fluctuations, both parties stand to gain by being able to know exactly what they will get, and exactly what they will have to pay for it, so that certainty is worth something, and certainly better for some firms than leaving positions exposed. Of course you can use them for speculative purposes, and a good number of firms/people do but that's not really why they were invented." }, { "docid": "561884", "title": "", "text": "Successful covered calls are short term capital gains. The amount of time you have owned the underlying security is irrelevant. The gain occurred in the option period which will be an amount of days less than needed for a long term capital gain classification. Failed Covered calls can be either as the date you acquired the stock you are forced to sell determines their classification." }, { "docid": "440805", "title": "", "text": "\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"" }, { "docid": "396038", "title": "", "text": "Capping the upside while playing with unlimited downside is a less disciplined investment strategy vis-a-vis a stop-loss driven strategy. Whether it is less risky or high risky also depends on the fluctuations of the stock and not just long-term movements. For example, your stop losses might get triggered because of a momentary sharp decline in stock price due to a large volume transaction (esp more so in small-cap stocks). Although, the stock price might recover from the sudden price drop pretty soon causing a seemingly preventable loss. That being said, playing with stop losses is always considered a safer strategy. It may not increase your profits but can certainly cap your losses." }, { "docid": "21768", "title": "", "text": "Being long the call is being long the option. The call is a type of option. A put is a type of option If you buy a call, you are long an option and long the underlying asset. If you buy a put, you are long an option and short the underlying asset." }, { "docid": "354767", "title": "", "text": "For the type of market neutrality you desire, free from crash risk, it's best to hedge the shares with covered calls when implied volatility is expensive and puts when implied volatility is cheap with the nearest at the money expirations. A put only strategy can be very expensive and should only be used with the longest term options available since they can cost many tens of % per year. Securities become almost perfectly correlated during a crash; therefore, market crash risk of one security is essentially equal to the market crash risk, so hedging the security itself makes a position market neutral for crash risk. This strategy will have intermittent opportunity cost risk in the form of slower returns during market expansion to pay for smaller losses during a crash; however, the expected long run return hedged this way should be greater than the underlying's expected long run return with less volatility." }, { "docid": "115652", "title": "", "text": "\"Of the two, an option is a more reliable but more expensive means to get rid of a stock. As sdg said, a put option is basically an insurance policy on the stock; you pay a certain price for the contract itself, which locks in a sale price up to a particular future date. If the stock depreciates significantly, you exercise the option and get the contract price; otherwise you let the contract expire and keep the stock. Long-term, these are bad bets as each expired contract will offset earnings, but if you foresee a near-term steep drop in the stock price but aren't quite sure, a put option is good peace of mind. A sell stop order is generally cheaper, but less reliable. You set a trigger price, say a loss of 10% of the stock's current value. If that threshold is reached, the stop order becomes a sell order and the broker will sell the stock on the market, take his commission (or a fixed price depending on your broker) and you get the rest. However, there has to be a buyer willing to buy at that price at the moment the trigger fires; if a stock has lost 10% rapidly, it's probably on the way down hard, and the order might not complete until you realize a 12% loss, or a 15%, or even 20%. A sell stop limit (a combination stop order and limit order) allows you to say that you want to sell if the stock drops to $X, but not sell if it drops below $X-Y. This allows you to limit realized losses by determining a band within which it should be sold, and not to sell above or below that price. These are cheaper because you only pay for the order if it is executed successfully; if you never need it, it's free (or very cheap; some brokers will charge a token service fee to maintain a stop or stop limit). However, if the price drops very quickly or you specify too narrow a band, the stock can drop through that band too quickly to execute the sell order and you end up with a severely depreciated stock and an unexercised order. This can happen if the company whose stock you own buys another company; VERY quickly, both stocks will adjust, the buying company will often plummet inside a few seconds after news of the merger is announced, based on the steep drop in working capital and/or the infusion of a large amount of new stock in the buying company to cover the equity of the purchased company. You end up with devalued stock and a worthless option (but one company buying another is not usually reason to sell; if the purchase is a good idea, their stock will recover). Another option which may be useful to you is a swaption; this basically amounts to buying a put option on one financial instrument and a call on another, rolled into one option contract specifying a swap. This allows you to pick something you think would rise if your stock fell and exchange your stock for it at your option. For example, say the stock on which you buy this swaption is an airline stock, and you contract the option to swap for oil. If oil surges, the airline's stock will tank sharply, and you win both ways (avoiding loss and realizing a gain). You'd also win if either half of this option realized a gain over the option price; oil could surge or the airline could tank and you could win. You could even do this \"\"naked\"\" since its your option; if the airline's stock tanks, you buy it at the crashed price to exercise the option and then do so. The downside is a higher option cost; the seller will be no fool, so if your position appears to be likely, anyone who'd bet against you by selling you this option will want a pretty high return.\"" }, { "docid": "450910", "title": "", "text": "The liquidity is quite bad. I have seen open Intrest drop from thousands to zero. Theta and the lack of liquidity are strong reasons not to buy options. Instead, consider selling them. They say that most Option purchases expire worthless. Why is this so? Because hedge funds buy those out-of-the-money puts in case their position goes against them (like insurance). Make money selling insurance. No one makes money buying insurance." }, { "docid": "72024", "title": "", "text": "\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"" }, { "docid": "498075", "title": "", "text": "\"The response to this question will be different depending which of the investment philosophies you are using. Value investors look at the situation the company is in and try to determine what the company is worth and what it will be worth in the future. Then they look at the current stock price and decide whether or not the stock is priced at a good deal or not. If the stock price is priced lower than they believe the company is worth, they would want to buy stock, and if the price rises above what they believe to be the true value, they would sell. These types of investors are not looking at the history or trend of what the price has done in the past, only what the current price is and where they believe the price should be in the future. Technical analysis investors do something different. It is their belief that as stock prices go up and down, they generally follow patterns. By looking at a chart of what a stock price has been in the past, they try to predict where it is headed, and buy or sell based on that prediction. In general, value investors are longer-term investors, and technical analysis investors are short-term investors. The advice you are considering makes a lot of sense if you are using technical analysis. If you have a stock that is trending down, your strategy probably tells you to sell; buying more in the hopes of turning things around would be seen as a mistake. It is like the gambler in Vegas who keeps playing a game he is losing, hoping that his luck changes. However, for the value investor, the historical price of a stock, and even the amount you currently have gained or lost in the stock, are essentially ignored. All that matters is whether or not the stock price is above or below the true value determined by the investor. For him, if the stock price falls and he believes the company still has a high value, it could be a signal to buy more. The above advice doesn't really apply for them. Many investors don't follow either of these strategies. They believe that it is too difficult and risky to try to predict the future price of an individual stock. Instead, they invest in many companies all at once using index mutual funds, believing that the stock market as a whole always heads up over a long time frame. Those investors don't care at all if the prices of stock are going up or down. They simply keep investing each month, and hold until they have another use for the money. The above advice isn't useful for them at all. No matter which kind of investing you are doing, the most important thing is to pick a strategy you believe in and follow the plan without emotion. Emotions can cause investors to make mistakes and start buying when their strategy tells them to sell. Instead of trying to follow fortune cookie advice like \"\"Don't throw good money after bad,\"\" choose an investment strategy, make a plan, test it, and follow it, cautiously (after all, it may be a bad plan). For what it is worth, I am the third type of investor listed above. I don't buy individual stocks, and I don't look at the stock prices when investing more each month. Your description of your own strategy as \"\"buy and hold\"\" suggests you might prefer the same approach.\"" }, { "docid": "118360", "title": "", "text": "First, it depends on your broker. Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing. You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless. As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft. They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications. When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk. If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer. In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads." }, { "docid": "206756", "title": "", "text": "How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely. That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic. Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours. I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential)." }, { "docid": "114092", "title": "", "text": "I would also be getting out of the stock market if I noticed prices starting to fall and a crash possibly on the way. There are some good and quite simple techniques I would use to time the markets over the medium to long term. I have described some of them in the answer to this question of mine: What are some simple techniques used for Timing the Stock Market over the long term? You could use similar techniques in your investing. And in regards to back-testing DCA to Timing The Markets, I have done that too in my answer to the following question: Investing in low cost index fund — does the timing matter? Timing the Markets wins hand down. In regards to back-testing and the concerns Kent Anderson has brought up, when I back-test a trading strategy, if that strategy is successful, I then forward test it over a year or two to confirm the results. As with back-testing you can sometimes curve fit your criteria too much. By forward testing you are confirming that the strategy is robust over different market conditions. One strategy you can take when the market does start to fall is short selling, as mentioned by some already. I am now short selling using CFDs over the short to medium term as one of my more aggressive strategies. I have a longer term strategy where I do not short, but tighten my stop losses when the market starts to tank. Sometimes my positions will keep going up even though the market as a whole is heading down, and I can make an extra 5% to 10% on these positions before I get taken out. The rare position even continues going up during the whole downturn and when the market starts to recover. So I let the market decide when I get out and when I stay in, I leave my emotions out of it. The best thing you can do is have a written trading plan with all your criteria for getting into the market, your criteria for getting out of the market and your position sizing and risk management incorporated in the plan." }, { "docid": "202432", "title": "", "text": "\"How do option market makers actually hedge their positions so that they do not have a price risk? You cannot complete hedge away price risk of a sold call simply by buying the underlying and waiting. As the price of the underlying decreases, the \"\"Delta\"\" (price risk) decreases, so as the underlying decreases, you would gradually sell some of the underlying to reduce your price risk from the underlying to match the price risk of the option. The opposite is true as well - as the price of the underlying increases, you'd buy more of the underlying to maintain a \"\"delta neutral\"\" position. If you want to employ this strategy, first you need to fully understand what \"\"delta\"\" is and how to calculate it. Then you can use delta hedging to reduce your price risk.\"" }, { "docid": "189144", "title": "", "text": "A long call options spread. In this case, a bet that the USO ETF would recover to $35. You can see, I got in when USO was $28, and it's continued to drop, but it has till Jan '17 to recover. The spread is set up to give leverage, when I entered the trade, a 50% recovery would result in a 200% gain, or 3X my bet. An option spread can be bought using any two strikes, and with different payouts depending on how far out of the money the strikes are." } ]

[ { "docid": "267113", "title": "", "text": "The nature of options requires you to understand that they are essentially a bet. In one sense, so is investing in stocks. We imagine a bell curve (first mistake) with a median return at 10%/yr and a standard deviation of about 14%. Then we say that odds are that over some period of time a monte-carlo simulation can give us the picture of the likely returns. Now, when you buy short term options, say one month or so, you are hoping the outcome is a rise in price that will yield some pretty high return, right? There was a time I noticed a particular stock would move a large percent based on earnings. And earnings were a day before options expiration. So I'd buy the call that was just out of the money and if the surprise was up, I'd make 3-4X my money. But I was always prepared to lose it all and often did. I never called this investing. I know of no recovery strategy. Sorry." } ]

[ { "docid": "163630", "title": "", "text": "\"I have traded options, but not professionally. I hadn't come across this terminology, but I expect it counts how far in-the-money, as an ordinal, an option is relative to the distinct strike prices offered for the option series — a series being the combination of underlying symbol, expiration date, and option type (call/put); e.g., all January 2015 XYZ calls, no matter the strike. For instance, if stock XYZ trades today at $11 and the available January 2015 XYZ calls have strike prices of $6, $8, $10, $12, $14, and $16, then I would expect the $10 call could be called one strike in the money, the $8 two strikes in the money, etc. Similarly, the $12 and $14 calls would be one and two strikes out of the money, respectively. However, if tomorrow XYZ moves to $13, then the $10 previously known as one strike in the money would now be two strikes in the money, and the $12 would be the new one strike in the money. Perhaps this terminology arose because many option strategies frequently involve using options that are at- or near-the-money, so the \"\"one strike in\"\" (or out) of the money contracts would tend to be those employed frequently? Perhaps it makes it easier for people to describe strategies in a more general sense, without citing specific examples. However, the software developer in me dislikes it, given that the measurement is relative to both the current underlying price (which changes quickly), and the strike prices available in the given option series. Hence, I wouldn't use this terminology myself and I suggest you eschew it, too, in favor of something concrete; e.g. specify your contract strikes in dollar terms — especially when it matters.\"" }, { "docid": "162771", "title": "", "text": "As other uses have pointed out, your example is unusual in that is does not include any time value or volatility value in the quoted premiums, the premiums you quote are only intrinsic values. For well in-the-money options, the intrinsic value will certainly be the vast majority of the premium, but not the sole component. Having said that, the answer would clearly be that the buyer should buy the $40 call at a premium of $10. The reason is that the buyer will pay less for the option and therefore risk less money, or buy more options for the same amount of money. Since the buyer is assuming that the price will rise, the return that will be realised will be the same in gross terms, but higher in relative terms for the buyer of the $40 call. For example, if the underlying price goes to $60, then the buyer of the $40 call would (potentially) double their money when the premium goes from $10 to $20, while the buyer of the $30 call would realise a (potential) 50% profit when the premium goes from $20 to $30. Considering the situation beyond your scenario, things are more difficult if the bet goes wrong. If the underlying prices expires at under $40, then the buyer of the $40 call will be better off in gross terms but may be worse off in relative terms (if it expires above $30). If the underlying price expires between $40 and $50, then the buy of the $30 will be better off in relative term, having lost a smaller percentage of their money." }, { "docid": "120059", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally, ETFs work on the basis that there exists a pair of values that can be taken at any moment in time: A Net Asset Value of each share in the fund and a trading market price of each share in the fund. It may help to picture these in baskets of about 50,000 shares for the creation/redemption process. If the NAV is greater than the market price, then arbitrageurs will buy up shares at the market price and do an \"\"in-kind\"\" transaction that will be worth the NAV value that the arbitrageurs could turn around and sell for an immediate profit. If the market price is greater than the NAV, then the arbitrageurs will buy up the underlying securities that can be exchanged \"\"in-kind\"\" for shares in the fund that can then be sold on the market for an immediate profit. What is the ETF Creation/Redemption Mechanism? would be a source on this though I imagine there are others. Now, in the case of VXX, there is something to be said for how much trading is being done and what impact this can have. From a July 8, 2013 Yahoo Finance article: At big option trade in the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Note is looking for another jump in volatility. More than 250,000 VXX options have already traded, twice its daily average over the last month. optionMONSTER systems show that a trader bought 13,298 August 26 calls for the ask price of $0.24 in volume that was 6 times the strike's previous open interest, clearly indicating new activity. Now the total returns of the ETF are a combination of changes in share price plus what happens with the distributions which could be held as cash or reinvested to purchase more shares.\"" }, { "docid": "123320", "title": "", "text": "\"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \"\"permit you\"\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry!  Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\"" }, { "docid": "115652", "title": "", "text": "\"Of the two, an option is a more reliable but more expensive means to get rid of a stock. As sdg said, a put option is basically an insurance policy on the stock; you pay a certain price for the contract itself, which locks in a sale price up to a particular future date. If the stock depreciates significantly, you exercise the option and get the contract price; otherwise you let the contract expire and keep the stock. Long-term, these are bad bets as each expired contract will offset earnings, but if you foresee a near-term steep drop in the stock price but aren't quite sure, a put option is good peace of mind. A sell stop order is generally cheaper, but less reliable. You set a trigger price, say a loss of 10% of the stock's current value. If that threshold is reached, the stop order becomes a sell order and the broker will sell the stock on the market, take his commission (or a fixed price depending on your broker) and you get the rest. However, there has to be a buyer willing to buy at that price at the moment the trigger fires; if a stock has lost 10% rapidly, it's probably on the way down hard, and the order might not complete until you realize a 12% loss, or a 15%, or even 20%. A sell stop limit (a combination stop order and limit order) allows you to say that you want to sell if the stock drops to $X, but not sell if it drops below $X-Y. This allows you to limit realized losses by determining a band within which it should be sold, and not to sell above or below that price. These are cheaper because you only pay for the order if it is executed successfully; if you never need it, it's free (or very cheap; some brokers will charge a token service fee to maintain a stop or stop limit). However, if the price drops very quickly or you specify too narrow a band, the stock can drop through that band too quickly to execute the sell order and you end up with a severely depreciated stock and an unexercised order. This can happen if the company whose stock you own buys another company; VERY quickly, both stocks will adjust, the buying company will often plummet inside a few seconds after news of the merger is announced, based on the steep drop in working capital and/or the infusion of a large amount of new stock in the buying company to cover the equity of the purchased company. You end up with devalued stock and a worthless option (but one company buying another is not usually reason to sell; if the purchase is a good idea, their stock will recover). Another option which may be useful to you is a swaption; this basically amounts to buying a put option on one financial instrument and a call on another, rolled into one option contract specifying a swap. This allows you to pick something you think would rise if your stock fell and exchange your stock for it at your option. For example, say the stock on which you buy this swaption is an airline stock, and you contract the option to swap for oil. If oil surges, the airline's stock will tank sharply, and you win both ways (avoiding loss and realizing a gain). You'd also win if either half of this option realized a gain over the option price; oil could surge or the airline could tank and you could win. You could even do this \"\"naked\"\" since its your option; if the airline's stock tanks, you buy it at the crashed price to exercise the option and then do so. The downside is a higher option cost; the seller will be no fool, so if your position appears to be likely, anyone who'd bet against you by selling you this option will want a pretty high return.\"" }, { "docid": "292045", "title": "", "text": "\"When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider \"\"rolling\"\" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan\"" }, { "docid": "469100", "title": "", "text": "You didn't give enough information. What is your goal? What is your financial situation? A discount to buy company stock can seem very tempting. I was tempted by it myself, gee, almost 20 years ago. I still own some of the stock. But I held mutual funds first. There are two disadvantages that have disuaded me from partaking in the ESPP of my subsequent employers (one of which was a spin-out company of the stock-issuing company, the other having bought the spin-out). First, putting a bunch of money in a single stock is rather risky. single stocks will drop dramatically due to market conditions. Generally market conditions don't act so dramatically on all stock. Second, is it wise to put not only your salary but also your saved wealth all in one basket? It worked out reasonably well for me. The stock doubled right before my division was spun out -- I sold half of my position. And the resulting stock has continued to provide opportunities to diversify. However, it could have just as easily dropped in half instead of doubled. What is your timeline for holding the stock -- for realizing any gain? Can you afford patience if the stock value should drop in half? I have co-workers who continue to invest through our new company's ESPP. At least one co-worker has the stated goal to sell after every purchase -- he holds the stock long enough to make a long-term gain instead of short term, but he sells after every purchase. And it seems to him that the stock always drops right when he wants to sell." }, { "docid": "133373", "title": "", "text": "It has got to do with the irrationality of humans. The so called long term investor is in it for the long term, they are not worried about market fluctuations nor timing the market. But yet they will aim to try to get a bargain when they buy in. It is contradictory in a way. Think about it; if I buy a stock and it drops by 30% I am not worried because I am in it for the long term, but I am worried about getting 1% off when I buy it. They usually tend to buy when the stock starts falling. However, what they don’t realise is when a stock starts falling there is no telling when it will stop. So even if they get a bargain for that day, it is usually quickly wiped out a few days later. Instead, of waiting for the price to find support and start recovering, they are eager to buy what they think is a bargain. I think this type of long term investing is very risky, and the main reason is because the investor has no plan. They just try to buy so called bargain stocks and hold them until they need the money (usually in retirement). But what happens if the stock price is lower when they want to retire than when they bought it? I hope no long term investor was trying to retire in 2008. If they simply had a plan to indicate when they would buy and under what conditions they would sell, and have a risk management plan in place, then maybe they could reduce their risk somewhat and conserve their capital. A good article to read on this is What's Wrong With Long-Term Investing." }, { "docid": "87283", "title": "", "text": "You would not owe any taxes in the 2015 year, unless you got exercised and called away in 2015. The premium would be short term capital gains barring some other exception I'm not aware of, and if you retain a gain on the underlying shares then that would still be long term capital gains. If it gets called in say April 2016, is the premium+profit+dividends all long term capital gains for the year 2016? The profits are long term capital gains and the premium serves to lower your cost basis, dividends have their own conditions so you'll have to do separate research on that, fortunately they'll likely be negligible compared to the potential capital gains and options premium." }, { "docid": "195152", "title": "", "text": "Put options are contracts to sell. You pay me a fee for the right to put the stock (or other underlying security) in my hands if you want to. That happens on a specific date (the strike date) and a specified price (the strike price). You can decide not to exercise that right, but I must follow through and let you sell it to me if you want to. Put options can be used by the purchaser to cap losses. For example: You purchase a PUT option for GE Oct19 13.00 from me. On October 19th, you can make me let you sell your GE stock to me for $13.00 a share. If the price for GE has fallen to $12.00, that would be a good idea. If its now at $15.00 a share, you will probably keep the GE or sell it at the current market price. Call options are contracts to buy. The same idea only in the other direction: You pay me a fee for the right to call the stock away from me. Calls also have a strike date and strike price. Like a put, you can choose not to exercises it. You can choose to buy the stock from me (on the strike date for the strike price), but I have to let you buy it from me if you want to. For example: You purchase a CALL option for GE Oct19 16.00 option from me. On October 19th, you can buy my GE stock from me for $16.00 a share. If the current price is $17.50, you should make me let you buy if from me for $16.00. If its less than $16.00, you could by it at the current market price for less. Commonly, options are for a block of 100 shares of the underlying security. Note: this is a general description. Options can be very complicated. The fee you pay for the option and the transaction fees associated with the shares affects whether or not exercising is financially beneficial. Options can be VERY RISKY. You can loose all your money as there is no innate value in the option, only how it relates to the underlying security. Before your brokerage will let you trade, there are disclosures you must read and affirm that you understand the risk." }, { "docid": "372417", "title": "", "text": "\"Here are some things to consider if you want to employ a covered call strategy for consistent returns. The discussion also applies to written puts, as they're functionally equivalent. Write covered calls only on fairly valued stock. If the stock is distinctly undervalued, just buy it. By writing the call, you cap the gains that it will achieve as the stock price gravitates to intrinsic value. If the stock is overvalued, sell it, or just stay away. As the owner of a covered call position, you have full exposure to the downside of the stock. The premium received is normally way too small to protect against much of a drop in price. The ideal candidate doesn't change in price much over the life of the position. Yes, this is low volatility, which brings low option premiums. As a seller you want high premiums. But this can't be judged in a vacuum. No matter how high the volatility in absolute terms, as a seller you're betting the market has overpriced volatility. If volatility is high, so premiums are fat, but the market is correct, then the very real risk of the stock dropping over the life of the position offsets the premium received. One thing to look at is current implied volatility for the at-the-money (ATM), near-month call. Compare it to the two-year historical volatility (Morningstar has this conveniently displayed). Moving away from pure volatility, consider writing calls about three months out, just slightly out of the money. The premium is all time value, and the time value decay accelerates in the final few months. (In theory, a series of one-month options would be higher time value, but there are frictional costs, and no guarantee that today's \"\"good deal\"\" will be repeatable twelve time per year.) When comparing various strikes and expirations, compare time value per day. To compare the same statistic across multiple companies, use time value per day as a percent of capital at risk. CaR is the price of the stock less the premium received. If you already own the stock, track it as if you just bought it for this strategy, so use the price on the day you wrote the call. Along with time value per day, compare the simple annualized percent return, again, on capital at risk, measuring the return if a) the stock is called away, and b) the stock remains unchanged. I usually concentrate more on the second scenario, as we get the capital gain on the stock regardless, without the option strategy. Ideally, you can also calculate the probability (based on implied volatility) of the stock achieving these price points by expiration. Measuring returns at many possible stock prices, you can develop an overall expected return. I won't go into further detail, as it seems outside the scope here. Finally, I usually target a minimum of 25% annualized if the stock remains unchanged. You can, of course, adjust this up or down depending on your risk tolerance. I consider this to be conservative.\"" }, { "docid": "265744", "title": "", "text": "Robert is right saying that options' prices are affected by implied volatility but is wrong saying that you have to look at the VIX index. For two reasons: 1) the VIX index is for S&P500 options only. If you are trading other options, it is less useful. 2) if you are trading an option that is not at the money, your implied volatility may be very different (and follow a different dynamics) that the VIX index. So please look at the right implied volatility. In terms of strategy, I don't think that not doing anything is a good strategy. I accept any point of view but you should consider that option traders should be able to adjust positions depending on market view. So you are long 1 call, suppose strike 10. Suppose the underlying price at the time of entry was 10 (so the call was at the money). Now it's 9. 1) you still have a bullish view: buy 1 call strike 9 and sell 2 calls strike 10. This way you have a bull call spread with much higher probability of leading to profit. You are limiting your profit potential but you are also reducing the costs and managing the greeks in a proper way (and in line with your expectations). 2) you become bearish: you can sell 1 call strike 9. This way you end up with a bear call spread. Again, you are limiting your profit potential but you are also reducing the costs and managing the greeks in a proper way (and in line with your expectations). 3) you become neutral: buy 1 call strike 8 and sell 2 calls strike 9. This way you end up with a call butterfly. You are almost delta neutral and you can wait until your view becomes clear enough to become directional. At that point you can modify the butterfly to make it directional. These are just some opportunities you have. There is no reason for you to wait. Options are eroding contracts and you must be fast and adjust the position before time starts eroding your capital at risk. It's true that buying a call doesn't make you loose more than the premium you paid, but it's better to reduce this premium further with some adjustment. Isn't it? Hope that helps. :)" }, { "docid": "69395", "title": "", "text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"" }, { "docid": "221881", "title": "", "text": "\"Covered calls, that is where the writer owns the underlying security, aren't the only type of calls one can write. Writing \"\"uncovered calls,\"\" wherein one does NOT own the underlying, are a way to profit from a price drop. For example, write the call for a $5 premium, then when the underlying price drops, buy it back for $4, and pocket the $1 profit.\"" }, { "docid": "243714", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer to the question, can I exercise the option right away? depends on the exercise style of the particular option contract you are talking about. If it's an American-style exercise, you can exercise at any moment until the expiration date. If it's an European-style exercise, you can only exercise at the expiration date. According to the CME Group website on the FOPs on Gold futures, it's an American-style exercise (always make sure to double check this - especially in the Options on Futures world, there are quite a few that are European style): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contractSpecs_options.html?optionProductId=192#optionProductId=192 So, if you wanted to, the answer is: yes, you can exercise those contracts before expiration. But a very important question you should ask is: should you? Option prices are composed of 2 parts: intrinsic value, and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is defined as by how much the option is in the money. That is, for Calls, it's how much the strike is below the current underlying price; and for Puts, it's how much the strike is above the current underlying price. Extrinsic value is whatever amount you have to add to the intrinsic value, to get the actual price the option is trading at the market. Note that there's no negative intrinsic value. It's either a positive number, or 0. When the intrinsic value is 0, all the value of the option is extrinsic value. The reason why options have extrinsic value is because they give the buyer a right, and the seller, an obligation. Ie, the seller is assuming risk. Traders are only willing to assume obligations/risks, and give others a right, if they get paid for that. The amount they get paid for that is the extrinsic value. In the scenario you described, underlying price is 1347, call strike is 1350. Whatever amount you have paid for that option is extrinsic value (because the strike of the call is above the underlying price, so intrinsic = 0, intrinsic + extrinsic = value of the option, by definition). Now, in your scenario, gold prices went up to 1355. Now your call option is \"\"in the money\"\", that is, the strike of your call option is below the gold price. That necessarily means that your call option has intrinsic value. You can easily calculate how much: it has exactly $5 intrinsic value (1355 - 1350, undelrying price - strike). But that contract still has some \"\"risk\"\" associated to it for the seller: so it necessarily still have some extrinsic value as well. So, the option that you bought for, let's say, $2.30, could now be worth something like $6.90 ($5 + a hypothetical $1.90 in extrinsic value). In your question, you mentioned exercising the option and then making a profit there. Well, if you do that, you exercise your options, get some gold futures immediately paying $1350 for them (your strike), and then you can sell them in the market for $1355. So, you make $5 there (multiplied by the contract multiplier). BUT your profit is not $5. Here's why: remember that you had to buy that option? You paid some money for that. In this hypothetical example, you payed $2.30 to buy the option. So you actually made only $5 - $2.30 = $2.70 profit! On the other hand, you could just have sold the option: you'd then make money by selling something that you bought for $2.30 that's now worth $6.90. This will give you a higher profit! In this case, if those numbers were real, you'd make $6.90 - $2.30 = $4.60 profit, waaaay more than $2.70 profit! Here's the interesting part: did you notice exactly how much more profit you'd have by selling the option back to the market, instead of exercising it and selling the gold contracts? Exactly $1.90. Do you remember this number? That's the extrinsic value, and it's not a coincidence. By exercising an option, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. You are going to convert all the extrinsic value into $0. So that's why it's not optimal to exercise the contract. Also, many brokers usually charge you much more commissions and fees to exercise an option than to buy/sell options, so there's that as well! Always remember: when you exercise an option contract, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. So it's never optimal to do an early exercise of option contracts and individual, retail investors. (institutional investors doing HFT might be able to spot price discrepancies and make money doing arbitrage; but retail investors don't have the low commissions and the technology required to make money out of that!) Might also be interesting to think about the other side of this: have you noticed how, in the example above, the option started with $2.30 of extrinsic value, and then it had less, $1.90 only? That's really how options work: as the market changes, extrinsic value changes, and as time goes by, extrinsic value usually decreases. Other factors might increase it (like, more fear in the market usually bring the option prices up), but the passage of time alone will decrease it. So options that you buy will naturally decrease some value over time. The closer you are to expiration, the faster it's going to lose value, which kind of makes intuitive sense. For instance, compare an option with 90 days to expiration (DTE) to another with 10 DTE. One day later, the first option still has 89 DTE (almost the same as 90 DTE), but the other has 9 DTE - it relatively much closer to the expiration than the day before. So it will decay faster. Option buyers can protect their investment from time decay by buying longer dated options, which decay slower! edit: just thought about adding one final thought here. Probabilities. The strategy that you describe in your question is basically going long an OTM call. This is an extremely bullish position, with low probability of making money. Basically, for you to make money, you need two things: you need to be right on direction, and you need to be right on time. In this example, you need the underlying to go up - by a considerable amount! And you need this to happen quickly, before the passage of time will remove too much of the extrinsic value of your call (and, obviously, before the call expires). Benefit of the strategy is, in the highly unlikely event of an extreme, unanticipated move of the underlying to the upside, you can make a lot of money. So, it's a low probability, limited risk, unlimited profit, extremely bullish strategy.\"" }, { "docid": "407385", "title": "", "text": "There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors." }, { "docid": "473015", "title": "", "text": "\"First lets understand what convexity means: Convexity - convexity refers to non-linearities in a financial model. In other words, if the price of an underlying variable changes, the price of an output does not change linearly, but depends on the second derivative (or, loosely speaking, higher-order terms) of the modeling function. Geometrically, the model is no longer flat but curved, and the degree of curvature is called the convexity. Okay so for us idiots this means: if the price of ABC (we will call P) is determined by X and Y. Then if X decreases by 5 then the value of P might not necessarily decrease by 5 but instead is also dependent on Y (wtf$%#! is Y?, who cares, its not important for us to know, we can understand what convexity is without knowing the math behind it). So if we chart this the line would look like a curve. (clearly this is an over simplification of the math involved but it gives us an idea) So now in terms of options, convexity is also known as gamma, it will probably be easier to talk about gamma instead of using a confusing word like convexity(gamma is the convexity of options). So lets define Gamma: Gamma - The rate of change for delta with respect to the underlying asset's price. So the gamma of an option indicates how the delta of an option will change relative to a 1 point move in the underlying asset. In other words, the Gamma shows the option delta's sensitivity to market price changes. or Gamma shows how volatile an option is relative to movements in the underlying asset. So the answer is: If we are long gamma (convexity of an option) it simply means we are betting on higher volatility in the underlying asset(in your case the VIX). Really that simple? Well kinda, to fully understand how this works you really need to understand the math behind it. But yes being long gamma means being long volatility. An example of being \"\"long gamma\"\" is a \"\"long straddle\"\" Side Note: I personally do trade the VIX and it can be very volatile, you can make or lose lots of money very quickly trading VIX options. Some resources: What does it mean to be \"\"long gamma\"\" in options trading? Convexity(finance) Long Gamma – How to Make a Long Gamma Position Work for You Delta - Investopedia Straddles & Strangles - further reading if your interested. Carry(investment) - even more reading.\"" }, { "docid": "193303", "title": "", "text": "The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc). Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option. However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price." }, { "docid": "71924", "title": "", "text": "\"A big part of the answer depends on how \"\"beaten down\"\" the stock is, how long it will take to recover from the drop, and your taste for risk. If you honestly believe the drop is a temporary aberration then averaging down can be a good strategy to lower your dollar-cost average in the stock. But this is a huge risk if you're wrong, because now you're going to magnify your losses by piling on more stock that isn't going anywhere to the shares you already own at a higher cost. As @Mindwin pointed out correctly, the problem for most investors following an \"\"average down\"\" strategy is that it makes them much less likely to cut their losses when the stock doesn't recover. They basically become \"\"married\"\" to the stock because they've actualized their belief the stock will bounce back when maybe it never will or worse, drops even more.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "340264", "title": "", "text": "That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees" } ]

[ { "docid": "143655", "title": "", "text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"" }, { "docid": "61919", "title": "", "text": "\"Alternatively you could exercise 12000 shares for $36000 and immediately sell 7200 shares to recover your exercise price. Then you use the remaining 4800 share to pay the exercise price of the remaining 8000 options. Both scenarios are equivalent but may have different fees associated, so it's worth checking the fine print. Tax wise: The above example is \"\"cash neutral before taxes\"\". The taxes associated with these transaction are substantial, so it's highly recommended to talk with a tax adviser. \"\"cash neutral after taxes\"\" depends highly on your specific tax situation.\"" }, { "docid": "477588", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, if it's an American style option. American style options may be exercised at any time prior to expiration (even if they're not in-the-money). Generally, you are required to deliver or accept delivery of the underlying by the beginning of the next trading day. If you are short, you may be chosen by the clearinghouse to fulfill the exercise (a process called \"\"assignment\"\"). Because the clearinghouse is the counter-party to every options trade, you can be assigned even if the specific person who purchased the option you wrote didn't exercise, but someone else who holds a long position did. Similarly, you might not be assigned if that person did exercise. The clearinghouse randomly chooses a brokerage to fulfill an assignment, and the brokerage will randomly choose an individual account. If you're going to be writing options, especially using spreads, you need to have a plan ahead of time on what to do if one of your legs gets assigned. This is more likely to happen just before a dividend payment, if the payment is more than the remaining time value.\"" }, { "docid": "70155", "title": "", "text": "Evostfitness being one of the best and trusted Name of Fitness Strength equipment and Best Home Gym Equipment.The back extension E-1031 exercise is a maneuver utilized to work the erector spinae and other smaller stabilizing muscles of the back. Strengthening these muscles is important for a variety of reasons.Before learning any new exercise, it is important to understand why the exercise is important, as well as what muscle groups are targeted by the exercise. In the case of the back extension, the primary muscles targeted are those in the lower back. Fortifying these muscles is vital in light of the fact that it gives a lot of adjustment to this piece of the body. For any Queries kindly contact us at:-www.evostfitness.com Our E-Mail Address:-support@evostfitness.com" }, { "docid": "178497", "title": "", "text": "Stock options represent an option to buy a share at a given price. What you have been offered is the option to buy the company share at a given price ($5) starting a given date (your golden handcuffs aka vesting schedule). If the company's value doubles in 1 year and the shares are liquid (i.e. you can sell them) then you've just made $125k of profit. If the company's value has gone to zero in 1 year then you've lost nothing other than your hopes of getting rich. As others have mentioned, the mechanics of exercising the option and selling the shares can typically be accomplished without any cash involved. The broker will do both in a single transaction and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the cost of buying the shares. You should always at least cover the taxable portion of the transaction and typically the broker will withhold that tax anyways. Otherwise you could find yourself in a position where you have actually lost money due to tax being owed while the shares decline in value below that tax. You don't have to worry about that right now. Again as people have mentioned options will typically expire 10 years from vesting or 90 days from leaving your employment with the company. I'm sure there are some variations on the theme. Make sure you ask and all this should be part of some written contract. I'm sure you can ask to see it if you wish. Also typical is that stock option grants have to be approved by the board which is normally a technicality. Some general advice:" }, { "docid": "457059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\"" }, { "docid": "343294", "title": "", "text": "There is a relatively straightforward transformation explained on the Wikipedia page here and on the links from that page. Note that this only applies to SEDOLs for instruments listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). To convert SEDOL to ISIN you pad leading zeroes onto the SEDOL until you have 9 digits. Then you add the two letter country code (as defined in ISO 3166-1) to the front. Then you add a final checksum digit to the end, again as defined in the algorithm on the Wikipedia page. To convert ISIN to SEDOL you do the reverse: remove the final digit, remove the two leading letters, and strip off any leading zeroes. Example:" }, { "docid": "415684", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, they don't \"\"make\"\" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public). The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price. It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares.\"" }, { "docid": "243714", "title": "", "text": "\"The answer to the question, can I exercise the option right away? depends on the exercise style of the particular option contract you are talking about. If it's an American-style exercise, you can exercise at any moment until the expiration date. If it's an European-style exercise, you can only exercise at the expiration date. According to the CME Group website on the FOPs on Gold futures, it's an American-style exercise (always make sure to double check this - especially in the Options on Futures world, there are quite a few that are European style): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contractSpecs_options.html?optionProductId=192#optionProductId=192 So, if you wanted to, the answer is: yes, you can exercise those contracts before expiration. But a very important question you should ask is: should you? Option prices are composed of 2 parts: intrinsic value, and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is defined as by how much the option is in the money. That is, for Calls, it's how much the strike is below the current underlying price; and for Puts, it's how much the strike is above the current underlying price. Extrinsic value is whatever amount you have to add to the intrinsic value, to get the actual price the option is trading at the market. Note that there's no negative intrinsic value. It's either a positive number, or 0. When the intrinsic value is 0, all the value of the option is extrinsic value. The reason why options have extrinsic value is because they give the buyer a right, and the seller, an obligation. Ie, the seller is assuming risk. Traders are only willing to assume obligations/risks, and give others a right, if they get paid for that. The amount they get paid for that is the extrinsic value. In the scenario you described, underlying price is 1347, call strike is 1350. Whatever amount you have paid for that option is extrinsic value (because the strike of the call is above the underlying price, so intrinsic = 0, intrinsic + extrinsic = value of the option, by definition). Now, in your scenario, gold prices went up to 1355. Now your call option is \"\"in the money\"\", that is, the strike of your call option is below the gold price. That necessarily means that your call option has intrinsic value. You can easily calculate how much: it has exactly $5 intrinsic value (1355 - 1350, undelrying price - strike). But that contract still has some \"\"risk\"\" associated to it for the seller: so it necessarily still have some extrinsic value as well. So, the option that you bought for, let's say, $2.30, could now be worth something like $6.90 ($5 + a hypothetical $1.90 in extrinsic value). In your question, you mentioned exercising the option and then making a profit there. Well, if you do that, you exercise your options, get some gold futures immediately paying $1350 for them (your strike), and then you can sell them in the market for $1355. So, you make $5 there (multiplied by the contract multiplier). BUT your profit is not $5. Here's why: remember that you had to buy that option? You paid some money for that. In this hypothetical example, you payed $2.30 to buy the option. So you actually made only $5 - $2.30 = $2.70 profit! On the other hand, you could just have sold the option: you'd then make money by selling something that you bought for $2.30 that's now worth $6.90. This will give you a higher profit! In this case, if those numbers were real, you'd make $6.90 - $2.30 = $4.60 profit, waaaay more than $2.70 profit! Here's the interesting part: did you notice exactly how much more profit you'd have by selling the option back to the market, instead of exercising it and selling the gold contracts? Exactly $1.90. Do you remember this number? That's the extrinsic value, and it's not a coincidence. By exercising an option, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. You are going to convert all the extrinsic value into $0. So that's why it's not optimal to exercise the contract. Also, many brokers usually charge you much more commissions and fees to exercise an option than to buy/sell options, so there's that as well! Always remember: when you exercise an option contract, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. So it's never optimal to do an early exercise of option contracts and individual, retail investors. (institutional investors doing HFT might be able to spot price discrepancies and make money doing arbitrage; but retail investors don't have the low commissions and the technology required to make money out of that!) Might also be interesting to think about the other side of this: have you noticed how, in the example above, the option started with $2.30 of extrinsic value, and then it had less, $1.90 only? That's really how options work: as the market changes, extrinsic value changes, and as time goes by, extrinsic value usually decreases. Other factors might increase it (like, more fear in the market usually bring the option prices up), but the passage of time alone will decrease it. So options that you buy will naturally decrease some value over time. The closer you are to expiration, the faster it's going to lose value, which kind of makes intuitive sense. For instance, compare an option with 90 days to expiration (DTE) to another with 10 DTE. One day later, the first option still has 89 DTE (almost the same as 90 DTE), but the other has 9 DTE - it relatively much closer to the expiration than the day before. So it will decay faster. Option buyers can protect their investment from time decay by buying longer dated options, which decay slower! edit: just thought about adding one final thought here. Probabilities. The strategy that you describe in your question is basically going long an OTM call. This is an extremely bullish position, with low probability of making money. Basically, for you to make money, you need two things: you need to be right on direction, and you need to be right on time. In this example, you need the underlying to go up - by a considerable amount! And you need this to happen quickly, before the passage of time will remove too much of the extrinsic value of your call (and, obviously, before the call expires). Benefit of the strategy is, in the highly unlikely event of an extreme, unanticipated move of the underlying to the upside, you can make a lot of money. So, it's a low probability, limited risk, unlimited profit, extremely bullish strategy.\"" }, { "docid": "528167", "title": "", "text": "Emergency Data Recovery by a SSAE 16 / Class 10 ISO 4 Cleanroom Certified Company in Indianapolis. Secure Data Recovery Services was the first data recovery company to earn an SSAE 16 certification and one of the only firms with an SAS 70 Type II certification. We use third-party consultants to audit and test our facilities several times per year in order to meet the requirements of these certifications." }, { "docid": "193303", "title": "", "text": "The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc). Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option. However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price." }, { "docid": "578022", "title": "", "text": "\"You owe no tax on the option transaction in 2015 in this case. How you ultimately get taxed depends on how you dispose of the position. If it expires, then you will have a short-term capital gain on the option position at expiration. If it is exercised, then the option is \"\"gone\"\" for tax purposes and your basis in the underlying is adjusted. From IRS Publication 550: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. In your case, this will be a long-term capital gain. For completeness, if you buy to cover the option back from the market before expiration or exercise, then it is also a short-term capital gain. Also, keep in mind that this all assumes that this covered call is \"\"qualified\"\" so that it does not count as a straddle. You can find more about that in Pub 550. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010630 All of this is for US tax purposes.\"" }, { "docid": "177720", "title": "", "text": "ISO-9001 GET STARTED RIGHT AWAY Having your quality management system independently certified to ISO 9001 will demonstrate your commitment to quality, best practice and continual improvement of your procedures. It will also provide assurance that your quality management system is operating efficiently and effectively, demonstrating cost savings and efficiencies year after year. The aim of ISO 9001 certification is to prove that an organization meets its own internal standards for quality and that these in turn meet international standards. Certification to ISO 9001 is not about establishing a new system; it documents your existing procedures to ensure that they meet the standard to deliver increased efficiencies.ISO 9001 is a widely recognized mark of quality that in many sectors is vital to winning new business. Many businesses who are certified themselves will seek out suppliers with ISO 9001 quality management systems certification. Our consultant will be happy to discuss this with you any time This System is suitable for all small to medium size enterprises CALL NOW For Free Consultation +971 50 3483821 !!!." }, { "docid": "220147", "title": "", "text": "Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options)." }, { "docid": "238682", "title": "", "text": "\"These warrants do not have a fixed expiration date, rather their expiration date is dependant upon the company completing an acquisition. Thirty days after the acquisition is complete the warrants enter their exercise period. The warrants can then be exercised at any time over the next five years. After five years they expire. From the \"\"WARRANT AGREEMENT SOCIAL CAPITAL HEDOSOPHIA HOLDINGS CORP.\"\": A Warrant may be exercised only during the period (the “Exercise Period”) (A) commencing on the later of: (i) the date that is thirty (30) days after the first date on which the Company completes a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination, involving the Company and one or more businesses (a “Business Combination”), and (ii) the date that is twelve (12) months from the date of the closing of the Offering, and (B) terminating at the earliest to occur of (x) 5:00 p.m., New York City time on the date that is five (5) years after the date on which the Company completes its initial Business Combination, (y) the liquidation of the Company in accordance with the Company’s amended and restated memorandum and articles of association, as amended from time to time, if the Company fails to complete a Business Combination, and (z) 5:00 p.m., New York City time on, other than with respect to the Private Placement Warrants, the Redemption Date (as defined below) as provided in Section 6.2 hereof (the “Expiration Date”); provided, however, that the exercise of any Warrant shall be subject to the satisfaction of any applicable conditions, as set forth in subsection 3.3.2 below, with respect to an effective registration statement Source : lawinsder.com\"" }, { "docid": "135363", "title": "", "text": "Investopedia states: While early exercise is generally not advisable, because the time value inherent in the option premium is lost upon doing so, there are certain circumstances under which early exercise may be advantageous. For example, an investor may choose to exercise a call option that is deeply in-the-money (such an option will have negligible time value) just before the ex-dividend date of the underlying stock. This will enable the investor to capture the dividend paid by the underlying stock, which should more than offset the marginal time value lost due to early exercise. So the question is how well do you see the time value factor here?" }, { "docid": "446628", "title": "", "text": "Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation." }, { "docid": "595605", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be \"\"early-exercised\"\" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election.\"" }, { "docid": "444668", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \"\"day-trading\"\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "441718", "title": "", "text": "This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000." } ]

[ { "docid": "358520", "title": "", "text": "Really all you need to know is that American style can be exercised at any point, European options cannot be exercised early. Read on if you want more detail. The American style Call is worth more because it can be exercised at any point. And when the company pays a dividend, and your option is in the money, if the extrinsic value is worth less than the dividend you can be exercised early. This is not the case for a European call. You cannot be exercised until expiration. I trade a lot of options, you wont be exercised early unless the dividend scenario I mentioned happens. Or unless the extrinsic value is nothing, but even then, unless the investor really wants that position, he is more likely to just sell the call for an equivalent gain on 100 shares of stock." }, { "docid": "238540", "title": "", "text": "In the event that you trust that you are an area for conceivable power interruptions, at that point you much better be prepared for things to happen. You can't stop the power interference to happen in your place any-way you can discover an administration so that even with a power interruption encounter, you can, in any case, proceed with what you are doing. All you require is a Commercial Backup Generator that will furnish you with the required power in light of the power that it has kept. The generator normally works by changing force into electrical vitality that is the reason you have the chance to proceed with home exercises as the power intrusion goes on." }, { "docid": "323768", "title": "", "text": "\"(See also the question How many stocks I can exercise per stock warrant? and my comments there). Clearly, at the prices you quote, it does not seem sensible to exercise your warrants at the moment, since you can still by \"\"units\"\" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) and bare stock at below the $11.50 it would cost you to exercise your warrant. So when would exercising a warrant become \"\"a sensible thing to do\"\"? Obviously, if the price of the bare stock (which you say is currently $10.12) were to sufficiently exceed $11.50, then it would clearly be worth exercising a warrant and immediately selling the stock you receive (\"\"sufficiently exceed\"\" to account for any dealing costs in selling the newly-acquired stock). However, looking more closely, $11.50 isn't the correct \"\"cut-off\"\" price. Consider three of the units you bought at $10.26 each. For $30.78 you received three shares of stock and one warrant. For an additional $11.50 ($42.28 in total) you can have a total of four shares of stock (at the equivalent of $10.57 each). So, if the price of the bare stock rises above $10.57, then it could become sensible to exercise one warrant and sell four shares of stock (again allowing a margin for the cost of selling the stock). The trading price of the original unit (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) shouldn't (I believe) directly affect your decision to exercise warrants, although it would be a factor in deciding whether to resell the units you've already got. As you say, if they are now trading at $10.72, then having bought them at $10.26 you would make a profit if sold. Curiously, unless I'm missing something, or the figures you quote are incorrect, the current price of the \"\"unit\"\" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant; $10.72) seems overpriced compared to the price of the bare stock ($10.12). Reversing the above calculation, if bare stock is trading at $10.12, then four shares would cost $40.48. Deducting the $11.50 cost-of-exercising, this would value three \"\"combined units\"\" at $28.98, or $9.66 each, which is considerably below the market price you quote. One reason the \"\"unit\"\" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) is trading at $10.72 instead of $9.66 could be that the market believes the price of the bare share (currently $10.12) will eventually move towards or above $11.50. If that happens, the option of exercising warrants at $11.50 becomes more and more attractive. The premium presumably reflects this potential future benefit. Finally, \"\"Surely I am misunderstand the stock IPO's intent.\"\": presumably, the main intent of Social Capital was to raise as much money as possible through this IPO to fund their future activities. The \"\"positive view\"\" is that they expect this future activity to be profitable, and therefore the price of ordinary stock to go up (at least as far as, ideally way beyond) the $11.50 exercise price, and the offering of warrants will be seen as a \"\"thank you\"\" to those investors who took the risk of taking part in the IPO. A completely cynical view would be that they don't really care what happens to the stock price, but that \"\"offering free stuff\"\" (or what looks like \"\"free stuff\"\") will simply attract more \"\"punters\"\" to the IPO. In reality, the truth is probably somewhere between those two extremes.\"" }, { "docid": "6771", "title": "", "text": "Conceptually, yes, you need to worry about it. As a practical matter, it's less likely to be exercised until expiry or shortly prior. The way to think about paying a European option is: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike is in the money at expiry] Whereas the American option can be thought of as: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike price is in the money at expiry] + ( [odds that strike price is in the money prior to expiry] * [odds that other party will exercise early] ). This is just a heuristic, not a formal financial tool. But the point is that you need to consider the odds that it will go into the money early, for how long (maybe over multiple periods), and how likely the counterparty is to exercise early. Important considerations for whether they will exercise early are the strategy of the other side (long, straddle, quick turnaround), the length of time the option is in the money early, and the anticipated future movement. A quick buck strategy might exercise immediately before the stock turns around. But that could leave further gains on the table, so it's usually best to wait unless the expectation is that the stock will quickly reverse its movement. This sort of counter-market strategy is generally unlikely from someone who bought the option at a certain strike, and is equivalent to betting against their original purchase of the option. So most of these people will wait because they expect the possibility of a bigger payoff. A long strategy is usually in no hurry to exercise, and in fact they would prefer to wait until the end to hold the time value of the option (the choice to get out of the option, if it goes back to being unprofitable). So it usually makes little sense for these people to exercise early. The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option. That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on. In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions. But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table. The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches. Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition." }, { "docid": "477588", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, if it's an American style option. American style options may be exercised at any time prior to expiration (even if they're not in-the-money). Generally, you are required to deliver or accept delivery of the underlying by the beginning of the next trading day. If you are short, you may be chosen by the clearinghouse to fulfill the exercise (a process called \"\"assignment\"\"). Because the clearinghouse is the counter-party to every options trade, you can be assigned even if the specific person who purchased the option you wrote didn't exercise, but someone else who holds a long position did. Similarly, you might not be assigned if that person did exercise. The clearinghouse randomly chooses a brokerage to fulfill an assignment, and the brokerage will randomly choose an individual account. If you're going to be writing options, especially using spreads, you need to have a plan ahead of time on what to do if one of your legs gets assigned. This is more likely to happen just before a dividend payment, if the payment is more than the remaining time value.\"" }, { "docid": "415718", "title": "", "text": "GlobalTradeConnect is the first leading trade network company in the world, which brought together over million businesses to increase the levels and quality of trade. We are the uniqueB2B marketplace for ISO certified companies. There are many manufacturers and sellers are attracted to a business to business marketplace because of our website they might offer their product and services.Buyer is already looking for new products, we hope all our registered sellers will make more customer through our company website." }, { "docid": "36453", "title": "", "text": "When you exercise a put, you get paid the strike price immediately. So you can invest that money and earn some interest, compared to only exercising at expiry. So the benefit to exercising early is that extra interest. The cost is the remaining time value of the option, along with any dividend payments you miss. As @JoeTaxpayer points out, there might be tax considerations that make it better to exercise at one time rather than another. But those would likely be personal to you, so if the option would intrinsically have more value unexercised, in many cases you could sell it on rather than exercise it. The exception might be if it wasn't very liquid and the transaction costs of doing that outweighed the theoretical value." }, { "docid": "18173", "title": "", "text": "The Evostfitness launch a new Exercise Equipment shoulder press E-1006 works several muscles of the upper body and offers a host of benefits that improve daily functioning. This exercise can be performed with Shoulder Press E-1006 Strength Gym Equipment, resistance bands or a machine.and Intelligent ergonomic design features comfortable, oversized grips with multiple positions, adjustable seat pad for desired start position.An important benefit of the shoulder press exercise, as well as any other strength-training exercise, is increased bone strength. During the lift, the load placed on your bones by the weights stresses them and causes them to adapt, just like your muscles. For More Information visit on:-www.evostfitness.com For any Queries kindly contact us at:-support@evostfitness.com" }, { "docid": "350748", "title": "", "text": "\"This is because volatility is cumulative and with less time there is less cumulative volatility. The time value and option value are tied to the value of the underlying. The value of the underlying (stock) is quite influenced by volatility, the possible price movement in a given span of time. Thirty days of volatility has a much broader spread of values than two days, since each day benefits from the possible price change of the prior days. So if a stock could move up to +/- 1% in a day, then compounded after 5 days it could be +5%, +0%, or -5%. In other words, this is compounded volatility. Less time means far less volatility, which is geometric and not linear. Less volatility lowers the value of the underlying. See Black-Scholes for more technical discussion of this concept. A shorter timeframe until option expiration means there are fewer days of compounded volatility. So the expected change in the underlying will decrease geometrically. The odds are good that the price at T-5 days will be close to the price at T-0, much more so than the prices at T-30 or T-90. Additionally, the time value of an American option is the implicit put value (or implicit call). While an \"\"American\"\" option lets you exercise prior to expiry (unlike a \"\"European\"\" option, exercised only at expiry), there's an implicit put option in a call (or an implicit call in a put option). If you have an American call option of 60 days and it goes into the money at 30 days, you could exercise early. By contract, that stock is yours if you pay for it (or, in a put, you can sell whenever you decide). In some cases, this may make sense (if you want an immediate payoff or you expect this is the best price situation), but you may prefer to watch the price. If the price moves further, your gain when you use the call may be even better. If the price goes back out of the money, then you benefited from an implicit put. It's as though you exercised the option when it went in the money, then sold the stock and got back your cash when the stock went out of the money, even though no actual transaction took place and this is all just implicit. So the time value of an American option includes the implicit option to not use it early. The value of the implicit option also decreases in a nonlinear fashion, since the value of the implicit option is subject to the same valuation principles. But the larger principle for both is the compounded volatility, which drops geometrically.\"" }, { "docid": "7733", "title": "", "text": "Options that are not worth exercising just expire. Options that are worth exercising are typically exercised automatically as they expire, resulting in a transfer of stock between the entity that issued the option and the entity that holds it. OCC options automatically exercise when they expire if the value of the option exceeds the transaction cost for the stock transfer (1/4 point to 3/4 point depending)." }, { "docid": "576503", "title": "", "text": "\"An option without the vesting period and the price at which one can exercise the option is of not much value. If vesting is determined by board, then at any given point in time they can change the vesting period to say 3, 5, 10 years any number. The other aspect is at what price you are allowed to exercise the option, ie if the stock is of value 10, you may be given an option to buy this at 10, 20 or 100. This has to be stated upfront for you to know the real value. On listing if the value is say 80, then if you have the option to exercise at 10, or 20 you would make money, else at 100 you loose money and hence choose not to exercise the option. However your having stuck around the company for \"\"x\"\" years in anticipation of making money would go waste. Without a vesting period or the price to exercise the option, they are pretty much meaningless and would depend on the goodwill of the founders\"" }, { "docid": "528052", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \"\"leverage\"\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\"" }, { "docid": "178497", "title": "", "text": "Stock options represent an option to buy a share at a given price. What you have been offered is the option to buy the company share at a given price ($5) starting a given date (your golden handcuffs aka vesting schedule). If the company's value doubles in 1 year and the shares are liquid (i.e. you can sell them) then you've just made $125k of profit. If the company's value has gone to zero in 1 year then you've lost nothing other than your hopes of getting rich. As others have mentioned, the mechanics of exercising the option and selling the shares can typically be accomplished without any cash involved. The broker will do both in a single transaction and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the cost of buying the shares. You should always at least cover the taxable portion of the transaction and typically the broker will withhold that tax anyways. Otherwise you could find yourself in a position where you have actually lost money due to tax being owed while the shares decline in value below that tax. You don't have to worry about that right now. Again as people have mentioned options will typically expire 10 years from vesting or 90 days from leaving your employment with the company. I'm sure there are some variations on the theme. Make sure you ask and all this should be part of some written contract. I'm sure you can ask to see it if you wish. Also typical is that stock option grants have to be approved by the board which is normally a technicality. Some general advice:" }, { "docid": "193303", "title": "", "text": "The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc). Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option. However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price." }, { "docid": "313172", "title": "", "text": "E' il sito web di un broker delle certificazioni di sistema, basta compilare il FORM dei contatti per ottenere subito e senza impegni fino a 4 preventivi specifici, ritagliati sulle proprie esigenze e dimesnioni aziendali. Un'ottima soluzione per risparmiare fino al 30% sui **costi della Iso 9001** e ottenendo il certificato di **Qualità** in tempi rapidi!" }, { "docid": "126548", "title": "", "text": "Website:https://www.hosesfittings.com || We have attained a valuable position in the industry by supplying an outstanding array of ISO Male 74 Degree Cone Jic Pipe Fittings. During production we only use modern machines and utmost-grade metal. To add to it, our quality analysts keep an eagle eye on the complete range at each and every stage of manufacturing to ensure its overall quality. These ISO Male 74 Degree Cone Jic Pipe Fittings are much appreciation for its dimensional accuracy and corrosion resistance nature. Shape: Equal Angle: 74 Degree Material: Carbon Steel Certification: DIN, JIS, GB Cartification: ISO Steel: 20# Steel Pressure: High Working Pressure Drawings: OEM or Lt Drawings Technic: Improving Technic by Engnieer Trademark: YH Hydraulic or custom-made print logo Origin: China Mainland Connection: Male Head Code: Hexagon Wall Thickness: Customs-Made Technics: Forged Color: Silver Name: High Quality Hydraulic Pipe Fittings Logo: Laser Print Delivery Time: 30 Days Engnieer: Professional Engnieer to Improve Inspection: More Than Three Inspection Specification: all size available HS Code: 73079300" }, { "docid": "33394", "title": "", "text": "If you're talking about ADBE options, that is an American style option, which can be exercised at any time before expiration. You can exercise your options by calling your broker and instructing them to exercise. Your broker will charge you a nominal fee to do so. As an aside, you probably don't want to exercise the option right now. It still has a lot of time value left, which you'll lose if you exercise. Just sell the option if you don't think ADBE will keep going up." }, { "docid": "237718", "title": "", "text": "There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants." }, { "docid": "514831", "title": "", "text": "\"You've described the process fairly well. It's tough to answer a question that ultimately is 'how is this fair?' It's fair in that it's part of the known risk. And for the fact that it applies to all, pretty equally. In general, this is not very common. (No, I don't have percents handy, I'm just suggesting from decades of trading it's probably occurring less than 10% of the time). Why? Because there's usually more value to the buyer in simply selling the option and using the proceeds to buy the stock. The option will have 2 components, its intrinsic value (\"\"in the money\"\") and the time premium. It takes the odd combination of low-to-no time premium, but desire of the buyer to own the stock that makes the exercise desirable.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "261258", "title": "", "text": "I've never heard of an employer offering this kind of arrangement before, so my answer assumes there is no special tax treatment that I'm not aware of. Utilizing the clause is probably equivalent to exercising some of your options, selling the shares back to your employer at FMV, and then exercising more options with the proceeds. In this case if you exercise 7500 shares and sell them back at FMV, your proceeds would be 7500 x $5 = $37,500, with which you could exercise the remaining 12,500 options. The tax implications would be (1) short-term capital gains of 7500 x ($5 - $3) = $15,000 and (2) AMT income of 12,500 x ($5 - $3) = $25,000, assuming you don't sell the shares within the calendar year." } ]

[ { "docid": "194605", "title": "", "text": "There are a few situations in which it may be advantageous to exercise early. Wikipedia actually has a good explanation: Option Style, Difference in value To account for the American's higher value there must be some situations in which it is optimal to exercise the American option before the expiration date. This can arise in several ways, such as: An in the money (ITM) call option on a stock is often exercised just before the stock pays a dividend that would lower its value by more than the option's remaining time value. A put option will usually be exercised early if the underlying asset files for bankruptcy.[3] A deep ITM currency option (FX option) where the strike currency has a lower interest rate than the currency to be received will often be exercised early because the time value sacrificed is less valuable than the expected depreciation of the received currency against the strike. An American bond option on the dirty price of a bond (such as some convertible bonds) may be exercised immediately if ITM and a coupon is due. A put option on gold will be exercised early when deep ITM, because gold tends to hold its value whereas the currency used as the strike is often expected to lose value through inflation if the holder waits until final maturity to exercise the option (they will almost certainly exercise a contract deep ITM, minimizing its time value).[citation needed]" }, { "docid": "595605", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be \"\"early-exercised\"\" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election.\"" }, { "docid": "396180", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"" }, { "docid": "43497", "title": "", "text": "The general rule with stock options is that it's best to wait until expiration to exercise them. The rationale depends on a few factors and there are exceptions. Reasons to wait: There would be cases to exercise early: Tax implications should be checked with a professional advisor specific to your situation. In the employee stock option plans that I have personally seen, you get regular income tax assessed between exercise price and current price at the time you exercise. Your tax basis is then set to the current price. You also pay capital gains tax when you eventually sell, which will be long or short term based on the time that you held the stock. (The time that you held the options does not count.) I believe that other plans may be set up differently." }, { "docid": "358520", "title": "", "text": "Really all you need to know is that American style can be exercised at any point, European options cannot be exercised early. Read on if you want more detail. The American style Call is worth more because it can be exercised at any point. And when the company pays a dividend, and your option is in the money, if the extrinsic value is worth less than the dividend you can be exercised early. This is not the case for a European call. You cannot be exercised until expiration. I trade a lot of options, you wont be exercised early unless the dividend scenario I mentioned happens. Or unless the extrinsic value is nothing, but even then, unless the investor really wants that position, he is more likely to just sell the call for an equivalent gain on 100 shares of stock." }, { "docid": "123320", "title": "", "text": "\"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \"\"permit you\"\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry!  Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\"" }, { "docid": "528167", "title": "", "text": "Emergency Data Recovery by a SSAE 16 / Class 10 ISO 4 Cleanroom Certified Company in Indianapolis. Secure Data Recovery Services was the first data recovery company to earn an SSAE 16 certification and one of the only firms with an SAS 70 Type II certification. We use third-party consultants to audit and test our facilities several times per year in order to meet the requirements of these certifications." }, { "docid": "135363", "title": "", "text": "Investopedia states: While early exercise is generally not advisable, because the time value inherent in the option premium is lost upon doing so, there are certain circumstances under which early exercise may be advantageous. For example, an investor may choose to exercise a call option that is deeply in-the-money (such an option will have negligible time value) just before the ex-dividend date of the underlying stock. This will enable the investor to capture the dividend paid by the underlying stock, which should more than offset the marginal time value lost due to early exercise. So the question is how well do you see the time value factor here?" }, { "docid": "324564", "title": "", "text": "I have held an in the money long position on an option into expiration, on etrade, and nothing happened. (Scalping expiring options - high risk) The option expired a penny or two ITM, and was not worth exercising, nor did I have the purchasing power to exercise it. (AAPL) From etrade's website: Here are a few things to keep in mind about exercises and assignments: Equity options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. For example, a September $25 call will be automatically exercised if the underlying security's closing price is $25.01 or higher at expiration. If the closing price is below $25.01, you would need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1 with specific instructions for exercising the option. You would also need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker if the closing price is higher than $25.01 at expiration and you do not wish to exercise the call option. Index options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. Options that are out of the money will expire worthless. You may request to exercise American style options anytime prior to expiration. A request not to exercise options may be made only on the last trading day prior to expiration. If you'd like to exercise options or submit do-not-exercise instructions, call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1. You won't be charged our normal fee for broker-assisted trades, but the regular options commission will apply. Requests are processed on a best-efforts basis. When equity options are exercised or assigned, you'll receive a Smart Alert message letting you know. You can also check View Orders to see which stock you bought or sold, the number of shares, and the strike price. Notes: If you do not have sufficient purchasing power in your account to accept the assignment or exercise, your expiring options positions may be closed, without notification, on the last trading day for the specific options series. Additionally, if your expiring position is not closed and you do not have sufficient purchasing power, E*TRADE Securities may submit do-not-exercise instructions without notification. Find out more about options expiration dates." }, { "docid": "453339", "title": "", "text": "\"INSULATOR MANUFACTURER Suraj Ceramics is one of the largest manufacturer, supplier and exporter of Ceramic Insulator, Porcelain Insulator, Solid Core Insulator, Hollow Insulator, Overhead Line Insulator, Hollow Bushing, Transformer Bushings and Custom Made Insulators from India. Suraj Ceramics Industries Ltd. is an ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Company occupied in the manufacture of electro porcelain insulators. We are the prominent producer, supplier, exporter of Disc Insulator, Guy Insulator, Pin Insulator, Post Insulator etc. Our goods are supplied with a guarantee of superior performance and toughness. We have garnered all kinds of resources to meet the condition of the clients. Our Assignment Announcement \"\"In Suraj Ceramic's selected business, we will maintain market management in India and guarantee to be globally aggressive through customer orientation and excellence in quality, modernization &amp; technology.\"\" Our Forte some aspects that have enabled us to carve a niche for ourselves in our area of operations are: Scientific know-how for the supply of equipment. Professional resource utilization. Knowledge in co-coordinating the behavior with consultant, clients, government authorities and other associated agencies for smooth supplies in the projects. Experience of execute several prestigious supplies in public and private sector industries of high status. Ability and capability to accomplish high value turn-key projects. Ability to accept challenging supplies with very short notice on urgent situation basis. Our Quality Endeavors Suraj Ceramics stand by the highest quality standards, ensuring that our customers receive premium quality products &amp; services. To ensure established standards of quality and achieve customer satisfaction, all our operations have adopted a streamlined program on quality control. All our operations &amp; processes, from the order finalization to the consignment delivery, hold on to ISO 9001 quality systems. We attempt to raise our standards of product &amp; recital so as to achieve customer approval through excellence in quality. Leveraging on a well planned work process, quality is maintain at every stage of performance. Tags: insulator, insulator suppliers, insulator manufacturer, insulator india, insulator exporters http://insulators.co.in/insulators/insulator-manufacturer\"" }, { "docid": "199206", "title": "", "text": "It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price." }, { "docid": "37152", "title": "", "text": "\"What you did is called a \"\"strangle.\"\" It's rather unlikely that both will be exercised on the same day. But yes, it can happen. That is if the market is very volatile on a given day, so that the stock hits 13 in the morning, the put gets exercised, and then hits 15 later in the day, so the call gets exercised. Or vice versa. More to the point, the prices are close enough that one might be hit on one day, and the other on a DIFFERENT day. In either case, if one side gets hit, you need to reevaluate your position in the other. But basically, any open position you have can be hit at any time. The only way to avoid this risk is not to have positions.\"" }, { "docid": "313172", "title": "", "text": "E' il sito web di un broker delle certificazioni di sistema, basta compilare il FORM dei contatti per ottenere subito e senza impegni fino a 4 preventivi specifici, ritagliati sulle proprie esigenze e dimesnioni aziendali. Un'ottima soluzione per risparmiare fino al 30% sui **costi della Iso 9001** e ottenendo il certificato di **Qualità** in tempi rapidi!" }, { "docid": "102436", "title": "", "text": "Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started." }, { "docid": "62308", "title": "", "text": "ISO-14001 Environmental Management Systems. ISO 14001 is a universal standard suitable for large and small businesses in any sector. In many sectors certification to ISO 14001 has become a requirement for trade, as organisations seek to mitigate environmental risk whilst managing sustainable growth. ISO 14001 is an Environment Management System (EMS), which is a tool for managing the impact of an organisations activities on the environment. It takes a pro-active approach, and allows business to consider environmental issues before they become a problem, rather than reacting to them afterwards. If your company invests in ISO 14001 accreditation, you are showing your staff, customers and the wider business community that you are not only committed to protecting the environment in the short term, but you are also willing to work within the guidelines of international environmental law in future. Our consultant will be happy to discuss this with you any time This System is suitable for all small to medium size enterprises CALL NOW For Free Consultation +971 50 3483821 !!!." }, { "docid": "248393", "title": "", "text": "ISOs (incentive stock options) can be closed out in a cashless transaction. Say the first round vests, 25,000 shares. The stock is worth $7 but your option is to buy at $5 as you say. The broker executes and sells, you get $50,000, with no up front money. Edit based on comment below - you know they vest over 4 years, but how long before they expire? It stands to reason the longer you are able to hold them, the better a chance the company succeeds, and the price rises. The article Understanding employer-granted stock options (PDF) offers a nice discussion of different scenarios supporting my answer." }, { "docid": "102316", "title": "", "text": "Assignment risk. In your example, if someone exercises OTM call, your account could be assigned. In that case, if you do nothing, you could lose more money than there is in the account. The broker won't do it for you because there is more than one way to handle the assignment. For example, you might choose to exercise the long call, or buy a different call and exercise that. Selling the long call may be enough to satisfy any resulting margin call." }, { "docid": "490263", "title": "", "text": "I am waiting for the day China and India doing military exercise together, right the next day after Trump say China is a threat to India. lol. 9not a real military exercise, but a diplomatic showcase.) This is the exact same thing when US did military exercise with India, thinking they have successfully realigning India, the next month, even bigger military exercise with Russia. Both India and China are not naive, they certainly know what US role was during the 60's and 70's vis a vis today's scheme. Both countries know they have bigger fish to fries than punching each other in the face because some american told them so. Not peace or detente, but certainly not state of war like in 70's anymore." }, { "docid": "458063", "title": "", "text": "\"No, you cannot. ISO are given to you in your capacity as an employee (that's why it is \"\"qualified\"\"), while your IRA is not an employee. You cannot transfer property to the IRA, so you cannot transfer them to the IRA once you paid for them as well. This is different from non-qualified stock options (discussed in this question), which I believe technically can be granted to IRA. But as Joe suggests in his answer there - there may be self-dealing issues and you better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) if this is something you're considering to do.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "43497", "title": "", "text": "The general rule with stock options is that it's best to wait until expiration to exercise them. The rationale depends on a few factors and there are exceptions. Reasons to wait: There would be cases to exercise early: Tax implications should be checked with a professional advisor specific to your situation. In the employee stock option plans that I have personally seen, you get regular income tax assessed between exercise price and current price at the time you exercise. Your tax basis is then set to the current price. You also pay capital gains tax when you eventually sell, which will be long or short term based on the time that you held the stock. (The time that you held the options does not count.) I believe that other plans may be set up differently." } ]

[ { "docid": "417838", "title": "", "text": "\"The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible \"\"exit\"\" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't \"\"cash out\"\" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave. The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common.\"" }, { "docid": "409818", "title": "", "text": "\"When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the \"\"60-day window\"\" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company.\"" }, { "docid": "519781", "title": "", "text": "\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \"\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\"\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\"" }, { "docid": "140371", "title": "", "text": "To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above." }, { "docid": "362874", "title": "", "text": "the short answer is: No. you do not HAVE to pay $125,000.00 at the end of your first year. that is only the amount IF you decide to exercise. *fine print: But if you leave or get let go (which happens quite frequently at top tier Silicon Valley firms), you lose anything that you don't exercise. you're basically chained by a pair of golden handcuffs. in other words, you're stuck with the company until a liquidation event such as IPO or secondary market selling (you can expect to spend a few years before getting anything out of your stocks) Now, it's hard to say whether or not to exercise at that time, especially given we don't know the details of the company. you only should exercise if you foresee your quitting, anticipate getting fired, AND you strongly feel that stock price will keep going up. if you're in SF bay, i believe you have 10 years until your options expire (at which point they are gone forever, but that's 10 years and usually companies IPO well within 7 years). i would recommend you get a very good tax advisor (someone that understands AMT and stock options tax loopholes/rules like the back of their hand). I'm going to take a long shot and assume that you got an amazing offer and that you got a massive amount of ISOs from them. so i'll give this as an advice - first, congrats on owning a lot on paper today if you're still there. you chose to be an early employee at a good tech company. However, you should be more worried about AMT (alternative min tax). you will get enslaved by the IRS if you exercise your shares and can't pay the AMT. suppose, in your fictional scenario, your stock options increase 2x, on paper. you now own $1 Mil in options. but you would be paying $280000 in taxes if you chose to exercise them right now. Now, unless you can sell that IMMEDIATELY on the secondary market, i would highly advise you not to exercise right now. only exercise your ISOs when you can turn around and sell them (either waiting for IPO, or if company offers secondary market approved trading)." }, { "docid": "194605", "title": "", "text": "There are a few situations in which it may be advantageous to exercise early. Wikipedia actually has a good explanation: Option Style, Difference in value To account for the American's higher value there must be some situations in which it is optimal to exercise the American option before the expiration date. This can arise in several ways, such as: An in the money (ITM) call option on a stock is often exercised just before the stock pays a dividend that would lower its value by more than the option's remaining time value. A put option will usually be exercised early if the underlying asset files for bankruptcy.[3] A deep ITM currency option (FX option) where the strike currency has a lower interest rate than the currency to be received will often be exercised early because the time value sacrificed is less valuable than the expected depreciation of the received currency against the strike. An American bond option on the dirty price of a bond (such as some convertible bonds) may be exercised immediately if ITM and a coupon is due. A put option on gold will be exercised early when deep ITM, because gold tends to hold its value whereas the currency used as the strike is often expected to lose value through inflation if the holder waits until final maturity to exercise the option (they will almost certainly exercise a contract deep ITM, minimizing its time value).[citation needed]" }, { "docid": "120395", "title": "", "text": "A company is basically divided into shit the company owns (assets) and shit the company owes to people (liabilities). So what about ownership? Ownership is called equity and on a simplistic level equity = asset - liabilities. But a better view of that should be asset = liabilities + equity. Which means a company's assets is separated into things owned by debtors (e.g. Banks) and things owned by owners(founders and you). So when you are offered one percent, you are basically owning one percent of the company. Not the best explanation, but should be a simplified one. Here's where the options come in. When you are offered options. That means you have the option of redeeming the shares at a lower price than market. However these options are not usually immediately redeemable, there's usually a minimum amount of time you have to work at a company to be able to use these options. This period is called the vesting period." }, { "docid": "119976", "title": "", "text": "\"One alternative strategy you may want to consider is writing covered calls on the stock you have \"\"just sitting there\"\". This will allow you to earn a return (the premium from the calls) without necessarily having to give up your holding. As a brief overview, \"\"options\"\" are derivatives that give the holder the right (or option) to buy or sell shares at a specified price. Holders of call options with a strike prike $x on a particular security have the right to purchase that security at the strike price $x. Conversely, holders of put options with a strike price of $x have the right to sell that security at the strike price $x. Always on the other side of a call or put option is a person that has sold the option, which is called \"\"writing\"\" the option. If this person writes a call option, then he will be obligated to sell a certain amount of stock (100 shares per contract) at the strike price if that option is exercised. A writer of a put option will be obligated to by 100 shares per contract at the strike price if that option is exercised. Covered calls involve writing call contracts on stock that you own. For example, say you own 100 shares of AAPL, and that AAPL is currently trading for $330. You decide to write a Jan 21, 2012 call on these shares at a strike price of $340, earning you a premium of say $300. Two things can now happen: if the price of AAPL is not at least $340 on January 21, then the options are \"\"out of the money\"\" and will expire unexercised (why exercise an option to buy at $340 when you can buy at the currently cheaper market price?). You keep your AAPL stock plus the $300 premium you earn. If, however, the price of AAPL is greater than $340, the option will be exercised and you will now be required to sell the shares you own at $340. You will earn a return of $10/share ($340-$330), plus the $300 premium from the call option. You still make out in the end, but have unfortunately incurred an opportunity cost, as had you not written the call option you would have been able to sell at the market price, which is higher than the $340 strike price. Covered calls are considered relatively safe and conservative, however the strategy is most effective for stocks that are expected to stay within a relatively narrow price range for the duration of the contract. They do provide one option of earning additional money on stocks you are currently holding, albeit at the risk of giving up some returns if the stock price rises above the strike price.\"" }, { "docid": "558233", "title": "", "text": "I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively." }, { "docid": "469036", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd early-exercised 75% of my grant at $5 and (later) exercised the remaining portion at $2. So did you actually pay the money and got \"\"X\"\" unvested shares? I'll be leaving the company; and they'll be unwinding half of the grant, so I'll get some money back, but now the question is: Do they pay me back from the $5 shares or the $2 shares? This would depend on what your contract says on unvested shares. There can be numerous combinations. More Often these are forfeited. i.e. you are not granted the shares. At times if you have paid then the guideline would give the details what would happen; i.e. only half vest and are priced at market and you are forced to encash them.\"" }, { "docid": "63301", "title": "", "text": "You are the one lending yourself the shares to sell;you purchase the stock at market price and sell at the strike price of the option to the put seller when you exercise the option." }, { "docid": "457294", "title": "", "text": "You also need to remember that stock options usually become valueless if not exercised while an employee of the company. So if there is any chance that you will leave the company before an IPO, the effective value of the stock options is zero. That is the safest and least risky valuation of the stock options. With a Google or Facebook, stock options can be exercised and immediately sold, as they are publicly traded. In fact, they may give stock grants where you sell part of the grant to pay tax withholding. You can then sell the remainder of the grant for money at any time, even after you leave the company. You only need the option/grant to vest to take advantage of it. Valuing these at face value (current stock price) makes sense. That's at least a reasonable guess of future value. If you are absolutely sure that you will stay with the company until the IPO, then valuing the stock based on earnings can make sense. A ten million dollar profit can justify a hundred million dollar IPO market capitalization easily. Divide that by the number of shares outstanding and multiply by how many you get. If anything, that gives you a conservative estimate. I would still favor the big company offers though. As I said, they are immediately tradeable while this offer is effectively contingent on the IPO. If you leave before then, you get nothing. If they delay the IPO, you're stuck. You can't leave the company until then without sacrificing that portion of your compensation. That seems a big commitment to make." }, { "docid": "350748", "title": "", "text": "\"This is because volatility is cumulative and with less time there is less cumulative volatility. The time value and option value are tied to the value of the underlying. The value of the underlying (stock) is quite influenced by volatility, the possible price movement in a given span of time. Thirty days of volatility has a much broader spread of values than two days, since each day benefits from the possible price change of the prior days. So if a stock could move up to +/- 1% in a day, then compounded after 5 days it could be +5%, +0%, or -5%. In other words, this is compounded volatility. Less time means far less volatility, which is geometric and not linear. Less volatility lowers the value of the underlying. See Black-Scholes for more technical discussion of this concept. A shorter timeframe until option expiration means there are fewer days of compounded volatility. So the expected change in the underlying will decrease geometrically. The odds are good that the price at T-5 days will be close to the price at T-0, much more so than the prices at T-30 or T-90. Additionally, the time value of an American option is the implicit put value (or implicit call). While an \"\"American\"\" option lets you exercise prior to expiry (unlike a \"\"European\"\" option, exercised only at expiry), there's an implicit put option in a call (or an implicit call in a put option). If you have an American call option of 60 days and it goes into the money at 30 days, you could exercise early. By contract, that stock is yours if you pay for it (or, in a put, you can sell whenever you decide). In some cases, this may make sense (if you want an immediate payoff or you expect this is the best price situation), but you may prefer to watch the price. If the price moves further, your gain when you use the call may be even better. If the price goes back out of the money, then you benefited from an implicit put. It's as though you exercised the option when it went in the money, then sold the stock and got back your cash when the stock went out of the money, even though no actual transaction took place and this is all just implicit. So the time value of an American option includes the implicit option to not use it early. The value of the implicit option also decreases in a nonlinear fashion, since the value of the implicit option is subject to the same valuation principles. But the larger principle for both is the compounded volatility, which drops geometrically.\"" }, { "docid": "312679", "title": "", "text": "Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1) [...] Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be available [...] ensures that only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely, where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't." }, { "docid": "100628", "title": "", "text": "While a margin account is not required to trade options, a margin account is necessary to take delivery of an exercised put. The puts can be bought in a cash account so long as the cash necessary to fund the trade is available. If you do choose to exercise which almost never has a positive expected value relative to selling except after the final trading time before expiration, taxes notwithstanding, then your shares will be put to your counterparty. Since options almost always trade in round lots, 100 shares will have to fund the put exercise, or a margin account must satisfy the difference. For your situation, trading out of both positions would be probably be best." }, { "docid": "31037", "title": "", "text": "My friend Harry Sit wrote an excellent article No Tax Advantage In RSU. The punchline is this. The day the RSUs vested, it's pretty much you got $XXX in taxable income and then bought the stock at the price at that moment. The clock for long term gain starts the same as if I bought the stock that day. Historical side note - In the insane days of the Dotcom bubble, people found they got RSUs vested and worth, say, $1M. Crash. The shares are worth $100K. The $1M was ordinary income, the basis was $1M and the $900K loss could offset cap gains, not ordinary income above $3000/yr. Let me be clear - the tax bill was $250K+ but the poor taxpayer had $100K in stock to sell to pay that bill. Ooops. This is the origin of the 'sell the day it vests' advice. The shares you own will be long term for capital gain a year after vesting. After the year, be sure to sell those particular shares and you're all set. No different than anyone selling the LT shares of stock when owning multiple lots. But. Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you feel it's time to sell, you can easily lose the tax savings while watching the stock fall waiting for the clock to tick to one year." }, { "docid": "336541", "title": "", "text": "\"There is unlimited risk in taking a naked call option position. The only risk in taking a covered call position is that you will be required to sell your shares for less than the going market price. I don't entirely agree with the accepted answer given here. You would not lose the amount you paid to buy the shares. Naked Call Option Suppose take a naked call option position by selling a call option. Since there is no limit on how high the price of the underlying share can go, you can be forced to either buy back the option at a very high price, or, in the case that the option is exercised, you can be force. to buy the underlying shares at a very high price and then sell them to the option holder at a very low price. For example, suppose you sell an Apple call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50, and for this you receive a payment of $250. Now, if the price of Apple skyrockets to, say, $1000, then you would either have to buy back the option for about $90,000 = 100 x ($1000-$100), or, if the holder exercised the option, then you would need to buy 100 Apple shares at the market price of $1000 per share, costing you $100,000, and then sell them to the option holder at the strike price of $100 for $10,000 = 100 x $100. In either case, you would show a loss of $90,000 on the share transaction, which would be slightly offset by a $250 credit for the premium you received selling the call. There is no limit on the potential loss since there is no limit on how high the underlying share price can go. Covered Call Option Consider now the case of a covered call option. Since you hold the underlying shares, any loss you make on the option position would be \"\"covered\"\" by the profit you make on the underlying shares. Again, suppose you own 100 Apple shares and sell a call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50 to earn a payment of $250. If the price of Apple skyrockets to $1000, then there are again two possible scenarios. One, you buy back the option at a premium of about $900 costing you $90,000. In order to cover this cost you would then sell your 100 Apple shares at the market price of $1000 per share to realise $100,000 = 100 x $1000. On the other hand, if your option is exercised, then you would deliver your 100 Apple shares to the option holder at the contracted strike price of $100 per share, thus receiving just $10,000 = 100 x $100. The only \"\"loss\"\" is that you have had to sell your shares for much less than the market price.\"" }, { "docid": "362473", "title": "", "text": "\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"" }, { "docid": "383930", "title": "", "text": "Option contracts typically each represent 100 shares. So the 1 call contract you sold to open (wrote) grants the buyer of that option the right to purchase your 100 shares for $80.00 per share any time before the option expiration date. You were paid a gross amount of $100 (100 shares times $1.00 premium per share) for taking on the obligation to deliver should the option holder choose to exercise. You received credit in your account of $89.22, which ought to be the $100 less any trading commission (~$10?) and miscellaneous fees (regulatory, exchange, etc.) per contract. You did capture premium. However, your covered call write represents an open short position that, until either (a) the option expires worthless, or (b) is exercised, or (c) is bought back to close the position, will continue to show on your account as a liability. Until the open position is somehow closed, the value of both the short option contract and long stock will continue to fluctuate. This is normal." } ]

[ { "docid": "213976", "title": "", "text": "To me it depends on things like your net worth, debt, and how other assets are invested. Currently you have 25K invested in the company you work for. If you have 100K in student loans, are a renter, and 12K in your 401K, then I would recommend exercising almost all of your options. In that case you have a much to large part of your world wrapped up in your company. If you have 250K in your 401K, own a home and have an emergency fund with no debt then you are fine with letting it ride. You can afford to absorb a loss of 25K without wrecking your net worth. More than likely, you are somewhere in between (just statistics speaking there). So why not exercise some of them now with the purpose of improving your financial situation? Say do a 1/3 now and when they come available. When 401ks were first invented people put almost all of their money in their company stock. They lost just about everything when the company went down in value and were often a victim of layoffs exasperating the issue. This is akin to the same situation. Most financial advisers recommend against putting any 401K money to company stock, or at least limiting the amount." } ]

[ { "docid": "261258", "title": "", "text": "I've never heard of an employer offering this kind of arrangement before, so my answer assumes there is no special tax treatment that I'm not aware of. Utilizing the clause is probably equivalent to exercising some of your options, selling the shares back to your employer at FMV, and then exercising more options with the proceeds. In this case if you exercise 7500 shares and sell them back at FMV, your proceeds would be 7500 x $5 = $37,500, with which you could exercise the remaining 12,500 options. The tax implications would be (1) short-term capital gains of 7500 x ($5 - $3) = $15,000 and (2) AMT income of 12,500 x ($5 - $3) = $25,000, assuming you don't sell the shares within the calendar year." }, { "docid": "484362", "title": "", "text": "I'm sorry, but your math is wrong. You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions. Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down. Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today. Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10. But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost. Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period. The only difference is the option contract. The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance. It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement." }, { "docid": "248393", "title": "", "text": "ISOs (incentive stock options) can be closed out in a cashless transaction. Say the first round vests, 25,000 shares. The stock is worth $7 but your option is to buy at $5 as you say. The broker executes and sells, you get $50,000, with no up front money. Edit based on comment below - you know they vest over 4 years, but how long before they expire? It stands to reason the longer you are able to hold them, the better a chance the company succeeds, and the price rises. The article Understanding employer-granted stock options (PDF) offers a nice discussion of different scenarios supporting my answer." }, { "docid": "420722", "title": "", "text": "\"Exercising an option early if you can't sell the underlying stock being purchased is generally not advisable. You're basically locking in the worst price you can possibly pay, plus you're losing the time value on your money (which is, admittedly fairly low right now, but still). Let's say you have a strike price of $50. I get that you believe the stock to be worth more than $50. Let's assume that that's probably, but not certainly right. Whether it's worth $51, $151, or $5,100 when your options are going to expire, you still get the profit of $1, $101, or $5,050 if you wait until expiration and exercise then. By exercising now, you're giving up two things: The interest on the money you pay to exercise from now until expiration. The guarantee that you can't lose anything. If you buy it now, you get all the upside above your strike, but have all the downside below it. If you buy it later (at expiration), you still have all the upside above your strike, but no downside - in the (assumed to be unlikely) event that it's worth less than the strike you can simply do nothing, instead of having something you bought at the strike that's worth less now and taking that loss. By exercising early, you take on that loss risk, and give up the interest (or \"\"carry\"\" on the money you spend to exercise) for no additional updside. It's possible that there are tax benefits, as other posters mention, but the odds that \"\"starting the clock\"\" for LTCG is worth as much as the \"\"optionality\"\", or loss protection, plus the \"\"carry\"\", or interest that you're giving up is fairly unlikely.\"" }, { "docid": "63301", "title": "", "text": "You are the one lending yourself the shares to sell;you purchase the stock at market price and sell at the strike price of the option to the put seller when you exercise the option." }, { "docid": "362874", "title": "", "text": "the short answer is: No. you do not HAVE to pay $125,000.00 at the end of your first year. that is only the amount IF you decide to exercise. *fine print: But if you leave or get let go (which happens quite frequently at top tier Silicon Valley firms), you lose anything that you don't exercise. you're basically chained by a pair of golden handcuffs. in other words, you're stuck with the company until a liquidation event such as IPO or secondary market selling (you can expect to spend a few years before getting anything out of your stocks) Now, it's hard to say whether or not to exercise at that time, especially given we don't know the details of the company. you only should exercise if you foresee your quitting, anticipate getting fired, AND you strongly feel that stock price will keep going up. if you're in SF bay, i believe you have 10 years until your options expire (at which point they are gone forever, but that's 10 years and usually companies IPO well within 7 years). i would recommend you get a very good tax advisor (someone that understands AMT and stock options tax loopholes/rules like the back of their hand). I'm going to take a long shot and assume that you got an amazing offer and that you got a massive amount of ISOs from them. so i'll give this as an advice - first, congrats on owning a lot on paper today if you're still there. you chose to be an early employee at a good tech company. However, you should be more worried about AMT (alternative min tax). you will get enslaved by the IRS if you exercise your shares and can't pay the AMT. suppose, in your fictional scenario, your stock options increase 2x, on paper. you now own $1 Mil in options. but you would be paying $280000 in taxes if you chose to exercise them right now. Now, unless you can sell that IMMEDIATELY on the secondary market, i would highly advise you not to exercise right now. only exercise your ISOs when you can turn around and sell them (either waiting for IPO, or if company offers secondary market approved trading)." }, { "docid": "155461", "title": "", "text": "\"There are no \"\"rules\"\" about how the price should act after an IPO, so there are no guarantee that a \"\"pop\"\" would appear at the opening day. But when an IPO is done, it's typically underpriced. On average, the shares are 10% up at the end of the first day after the IPO (I don't have the source that, I just remember that from some finance course). Also, after the IPO, the underwriter can be asked to support the trading of the share for a certain period of time. That is the so called stabilizing agent. They have few obligations like: This price support in often done by a repurchase of some of the shares of poorly performing IPO. EDIT: Informations about the overallotment pool. When the IPO is done, a certain number of client buy the shares issued by the company. The underwriter, with the clients, can decide to create an overallotment pool, where the clients would get a little more shares (hence \"\"overallotment\"\"), but this time the shares are not issued by the company but by the underwriter. To put it another way, the underwriter oversell and becomes short by a certain number of shares (limited to 15% of the IPO). In exchange for the risk taken by this overallotment, the underwriter gets a greenshoe option from the clients, that will allows the underwriter to buy back the oversold shares, at the price of the IPO, from the clients. The idea behind this option is to avoid a market exposure for the underwriter. So, after the IPO: If the price goes down, the underwriter buys back on the market the overshorted shares and makes a profits. If the price goes up, the company exercise the greenshoe option buy the shares at the IPO prices (throught the overallotment pool, that is, the additional shares that the clients wanted ) to avoid suffering a loss.\"" }, { "docid": "457294", "title": "", "text": "You also need to remember that stock options usually become valueless if not exercised while an employee of the company. So if there is any chance that you will leave the company before an IPO, the effective value of the stock options is zero. That is the safest and least risky valuation of the stock options. With a Google or Facebook, stock options can be exercised and immediately sold, as they are publicly traded. In fact, they may give stock grants where you sell part of the grant to pay tax withholding. You can then sell the remainder of the grant for money at any time, even after you leave the company. You only need the option/grant to vest to take advantage of it. Valuing these at face value (current stock price) makes sense. That's at least a reasonable guess of future value. If you are absolutely sure that you will stay with the company until the IPO, then valuing the stock based on earnings can make sense. A ten million dollar profit can justify a hundred million dollar IPO market capitalization easily. Divide that by the number of shares outstanding and multiply by how many you get. If anything, that gives you a conservative estimate. I would still favor the big company offers though. As I said, they are immediately tradeable while this offer is effectively contingent on the IPO. If you leave before then, you get nothing. If they delay the IPO, you're stuck. You can't leave the company until then without sacrificing that portion of your compensation. That seems a big commitment to make." }, { "docid": "139387", "title": "", "text": "\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"" }, { "docid": "417838", "title": "", "text": "\"The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible \"\"exit\"\" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't \"\"cash out\"\" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave. The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common.\"" }, { "docid": "120395", "title": "", "text": "A company is basically divided into shit the company owns (assets) and shit the company owes to people (liabilities). So what about ownership? Ownership is called equity and on a simplistic level equity = asset - liabilities. But a better view of that should be asset = liabilities + equity. Which means a company's assets is separated into things owned by debtors (e.g. Banks) and things owned by owners(founders and you). So when you are offered one percent, you are basically owning one percent of the company. Not the best explanation, but should be a simplified one. Here's where the options come in. When you are offered options. That means you have the option of redeeming the shares at a lower price than market. However these options are not usually immediately redeemable, there's usually a minimum amount of time you have to work at a company to be able to use these options. This period is called the vesting period." }, { "docid": "558233", "title": "", "text": "I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively." }, { "docid": "388362", "title": "", "text": "\"The other two answers seem basically correct, but I wanted to add on thing: While you can exercise an \"\"American style\"\" option at any time, it's almost never smart to do so before expiration. In your example, when the underlying stock reaches $110, you can theoretically make $2/share by exercising your option (buying 100 shares @ $108/share) and immediately selling those 100 shares back to the market at $110/share. This is all before commission. In more detail, you'll have these practical issues: You are going to have to pay commissions, which means you'll need a bigger spread to make this worthwhile. You and those who have already answered have you finger on this part, but I include it for completeness. (Even at expiration, if the difference between the last close price and the strike price is pretty close, some \"\"in-the-money\"\" options will be allowed to expire unexercised when the holders can't cover the closing commission costs.) The market value of the option contract itself should also go up as the price of the underlying stock goes up. Unless it's very close to expiration, the option contract should have some \"\"time value\"\" in its market price, so, if you want to close your position at this point, earlier then expiration, it will probably be better for you to sell the contract back to the market (for more money and only one commission) than to exercise and then close the stock position (for less money and two commissions). If you want to exercise and then flip the stock back as your exit strategy, you need to be aware of the settlement times. You probably are not going to instantly have those 100 shares of stock credited to your account, so you may not be able to sell them right away, which could leave you subject to some risk of the price changing. Alternatively, you could sell the stock short to lock in the price, but you'll have to be sure that your brokerage account is set up to allow that and understand how to do this.\"" }, { "docid": "575741", "title": "", "text": "\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \"\"underwater\"\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\"" }, { "docid": "260384", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, you can insure against the fall in price of stock by purchasing a put option. You pay for a put and if the price of the share falls below the \"\"strike price\"\" of the put, then you can exercise the put. On exercise, the person who sold you the put contract agrees to buy the stock for the strike price, even though that strike price is higher than the market price. You can adjust the level of insurance by buying put options at higher or lower prices, or buying fewer put options than shares you own (leaving some shares uninsured). Alternatively, you can minimize your risk exposure by investing in an index or other fund, which gives you partial ownership in a large number of shares. That means on any given day, lots of shares do worse and lots of shares do better. You can reduce the need for insurance by purchasing a lower-risk, lower-growth financial product.\"" }, { "docid": "444668", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \"\"day-trading\"\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\"" }, { "docid": "100628", "title": "", "text": "While a margin account is not required to trade options, a margin account is necessary to take delivery of an exercised put. The puts can be bought in a cash account so long as the cash necessary to fund the trade is available. If you do choose to exercise which almost never has a positive expected value relative to selling except after the final trading time before expiration, taxes notwithstanding, then your shares will be put to your counterparty. Since options almost always trade in round lots, 100 shares will have to fund the put exercise, or a margin account must satisfy the difference. For your situation, trading out of both positions would be probably be best." }, { "docid": "350748", "title": "", "text": "\"This is because volatility is cumulative and with less time there is less cumulative volatility. The time value and option value are tied to the value of the underlying. The value of the underlying (stock) is quite influenced by volatility, the possible price movement in a given span of time. Thirty days of volatility has a much broader spread of values than two days, since each day benefits from the possible price change of the prior days. So if a stock could move up to +/- 1% in a day, then compounded after 5 days it could be +5%, +0%, or -5%. In other words, this is compounded volatility. Less time means far less volatility, which is geometric and not linear. Less volatility lowers the value of the underlying. See Black-Scholes for more technical discussion of this concept. A shorter timeframe until option expiration means there are fewer days of compounded volatility. So the expected change in the underlying will decrease geometrically. The odds are good that the price at T-5 days will be close to the price at T-0, much more so than the prices at T-30 or T-90. Additionally, the time value of an American option is the implicit put value (or implicit call). While an \"\"American\"\" option lets you exercise prior to expiry (unlike a \"\"European\"\" option, exercised only at expiry), there's an implicit put option in a call (or an implicit call in a put option). If you have an American call option of 60 days and it goes into the money at 30 days, you could exercise early. By contract, that stock is yours if you pay for it (or, in a put, you can sell whenever you decide). In some cases, this may make sense (if you want an immediate payoff or you expect this is the best price situation), but you may prefer to watch the price. If the price moves further, your gain when you use the call may be even better. If the price goes back out of the money, then you benefited from an implicit put. It's as though you exercised the option when it went in the money, then sold the stock and got back your cash when the stock went out of the money, even though no actual transaction took place and this is all just implicit. So the time value of an American option includes the implicit option to not use it early. The value of the implicit option also decreases in a nonlinear fashion, since the value of the implicit option is subject to the same valuation principles. But the larger principle for both is the compounded volatility, which drops geometrically.\"" }, { "docid": "17661", "title": "", "text": "The trader has purchased 1095 options, each of which is a contract which entitles him to sell 100 shares of Cisco stock for $16 a share. He paid $71 for each contract (71 cents a share x 100) which is roughly $78k total. He will get $109,500 for each dollar below $16 Cisco's stock is when he exercises it (he can buy the stock for the going rate and then sell it for $16 immediately), or he can sell the option itself to someone else for a similar gain (usually a little more, especially if the option has a long time until it expires). If the option expires when the stock is over $16/share, he gets nothing; i.e. the original $78k is lost. For reference, Cisco's stock was trading at $17.14/share as of market close on March 18, 2010. The share price had recently been boosted by the recent news that they would be paying a quarterly dividend. It has been heading mostly downward since February 9, after they announced that they're not expecting profits to be as good as the analysts thought they would be: they claim that people aren't buying too much networking equipment just now, and they're also facing mounting competition from the likes of HP and Juniper for switches, and Aruba / HP / Motorola for wireless devices. They may lose market share or need to cut prices, hurting profits. Either way, there's certainly a real possibility of their stock going below $16 in the next few months, so people are willing to pay for those options. (Disclosure: I work for Aruba, who competes with Cisco. I also own shares of Aruba, possess assorted stock options and similar equity grants, and participate in the employee stock purchase program. I also own shares in Cisco indirectly through various mutual funds and ETFs.)" } ]

[ { "docid": "67107", "title": "", "text": "\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \"\"selling short\"\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "97490", "title": "", "text": "The money that you have under your control (e.g. in bank accounts, savings accounts, taxable investments, etc) is your money and there is no tax of any kind (either in India or in US) that needs to be paid when the money is transferred to India. As Dheer's answer says, you need to transfer all these monies within 7 years as per Indian tax law. For your 401(k) account, assuming that all the money is tax-deferred (i.e. you contributed to a regular 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k)), you will have separated from service as far as US tax law is concerned. So, check if it is at all possible to roll over the money into a similar scheme in India, specifically the Employees Provident Fund. Wikipedia says The schemes covers both Indian and international workers (for countries with which bilateral agreements have been signed; 14 such social security agreements are active). and so a rollover might be possible. If not, you could withdraw small amounts each year and avoid US income tax (but not the 10% excise tax), but how long you can continue holding 401(k) assets after return to India and whether that is long enough to drain the 401(k) are things that you need to find out." }, { "docid": "582443", "title": "", "text": "Personally, I think this one is best. RAROC (risk-adjusted return on capital) puts things in perspective for excess returns when considering risk-contribution. It does have its flaws, e.g. the quality of the VaR can be manipulated or simply incorrectly measured. But as in any model, it's GIGO (garbage-in garbage-out)." }, { "docid": "568394", "title": "", "text": "If I gift 50k to my Father who is retired but getting pension, will I get a 50k tax benefit? If Yes, then under which section would it be? 80C or other? There is no tax benefit for you on the 50K. This can't be deducted under any section. You have to pay tax. if Father's income i.e. Pension+gift doesn't come under tax slab and he doesn't wish to invest in tax saving scheme would I still be getting benefit? See above you do not get any tax benefit. Other Notes: Edit: Start from zero, you don't have any money. Say for the year 2015-2016, you get Rs 30 lacs salary. After deductions [PF, etc] you pay [say approx] Rs 10 lacs as tax. Now you have Rs 20 lacs. Assuming you survive on thin air and save Rs 20 lacs. If you invest this 20 lacs into FD. For the year 2016-2017 you will get Rs 2 lacs as interest on 20 lacs. Plus you have salary of Rs 30 lacs. So now your total income is 32 lacs and your tax will go up by around Rs 60,000 [approx 30% of Rs 2 lacs]. Instead if you gift this Rs 20 lacs to your father, there is no gift tax for you or your father. Now your father invested this Rs 20 lacs in FD, he will get an interest of Rs 2 lacs. This can be tax free to him if he does not have any other income. If he has say an income of Rs 2.5 lacs, then he has to pay tax on the Rs 2 lacs at 10% ... Now he can gift you the Rs 2 lacs for 2016-2017 there is no gift tax to you or him." }, { "docid": "566332", "title": "", "text": "\"Were you thinking of an annuity? They guarantee regular payments, usually after retirement. In any case, every investment has counterparty risk. Bonds guarantee payout, but the issuer could always default. This is why Treasury bonds have the lowest yields, the Treasury is the world's most trusted borrower. It's also why \"\"junk\"\" bonds have higher yields than investment grade and partially why longer duration bonds have higher yields. As mentioned, there's bank accounts, which gain interest and are insured by FDIC up to $250,000. If the bank folds, they'll be acquired by another and your account balance will simply transfer. Similar to bank accounts are money market funds. These are funds that purchase very short term \"\"paper\"\" (basically <90 day bonds). They maintain a share price of $1 and pay interest in the form of additional shares. These have the risk of \"\"breaking the buck\"\" where they need to sell assets at a loss to meet investor withdrawal demands and NAV drops below $1.00. Fortunately, that's a super rare occurance, but still definitely possible. Finally, there's one guy I've seen on TV pitching a no risk high yield investment. I can't remember the firm, but I am waiting to see them shut down for running a ponzi scheme.\"" }, { "docid": "223840", "title": "", "text": "What?! According to that article's description, ANYONE can take advantage of the Post Office. But the article tries to make it look like Amazon is the only one making off like bandits from it! What the one-sided argument are you trying to feed me here? That's still free market. I think you should look for the flaws in the articles before you accept their narrative. Every article has flaws. If you know what they are, you can shore them up with other proof that backs up the weaknesses, or you can dismiss the article as worthless. In the case of this article, I'm afraid I must dismiss it as worthless. It is selling a narrative that the Post Office is catering to Amazon, when it is clear that Amazon is simply abusing the Post Office the same way any company can, and probably does." }, { "docid": "35153", "title": "", "text": "\"So, if I understand the investment program here: You have $100 of tax withheld from your salary at the end of Jan, Feb, Mar... until December. This withholding is in excess of the expected tax for the year. You use the appropriate H&R Block product to file your taxes, and H&R Block gets your refund of $1200 on March 1st. H&R Block adds 10& and give you e-cards for $1320 On the face of it, this represents a return of 15.19% per year, compounded monthly. However, there are a few wrinkles that might make the scheme less inviting: You'll get a receipt for miscellaneous income from H&R Block, and pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". The quoted return is only realized if you can use the e-cards immediately. If they sit around for a while, then they aren't earning any interest. If you sell them for cash at a discount (if you even can!) then this reduces the return. If you don't cash them at all, they're a total loss. This offer was announced on Jan 15, 2015. So you can't go back and put it in place for 2014. And if you set it up for withholding in 2015, is there any guarantee that it the same offer will be in place when filing in 2016?\"" }, { "docid": "330694", "title": "", "text": "Depends on how you look at it. If it's a flaw in the specific methodology needed to count Twitter users, and if that flaw caused duplicate counts of some segments (or failure to remove duplicate instances if you prefer that), it could cause consistent overstatement. With that said, I'm sure they did it on purpose" }, { "docid": "271333", "title": "", "text": "Yes NRIs are allowed to open a DEMAT account in India from abroad. Investments can be made under the Portfolio Investment NRI Scheme (PINS) either on repatriation or non-repatriation basis. As per,the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India it is mandatory for NRIs to open a trading account with a designated institution authorized by the RBI. They must avail either a Non-Resident Ordinary (NRO) or Non-Resident External (NRE) account to route the various investments." }, { "docid": "290857", "title": "", "text": "\"Just addressing the sending side: you should be able to make the transfer out of the UK tax-free, if you transfer to a \"\"Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme\"\" (ROPS). These were formerly called QROPS (\"\"Qualifying...\"\") and a lot of online resources will talk about those. The basic idea is that as long as the overseas pension scheme guarantees to follow broadly similar rules to the UK system - e.g. not allowing you to withdraw your money before retirement age - then you can transfer to it. There's a list of these schemes on the HMRC website, but in theory you still have to check for yourself that they actually follow the relevant rules. I'm not sure how to do that in practice. There are only two USA providers listed, which suggests that transferring there isn't actually very common. The Wikipedia page suggests that in practice most people transfer to a scheme in a low-tax place like Gibraltar, rather than where they actually move to. I suspect that any move will be quite expensive in fees, and from your own answer it seems the USA won't recognise it as a transfer in anyway.\"" }, { "docid": "366191", "title": "", "text": "\"That's pure Evil right there. Instead of addressing the \"\"need\"\" for an H1B or any of the myriad flaws in either the notion or the implementation, this basically sets out to entrench the leaders The hysterical part is that it is inevitable that this will come out of the worker's pocket. So that $60M, instead of being a fee paid by Microsoft, actually doesn't cost them a dime that isn't offset by a tidy little lending operation (or several messy ones).\"" }, { "docid": "557201", "title": "", "text": "So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets." }, { "docid": "169289", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;The Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress may grant exclusive production rights to authors and inventors for a limited time... in order to promote science and art. Monopoly privilege does not promote science and art, it allows people and companies who would otherwise be forced to innovate to stay competitive to wield the power of the law and state to prevent others from acting freely with their own time and resources. If I figure out how to manufacture the same drug, the same device, the same widget or formula as someone else, and I wish to do so, I cannot because of the monopoly privilege granted by government. &gt;There was never any problem with the concept of patents. The notion that your ideas are sacred and no one may copy them is not some natural human right, it's a constructed paradigm created by government which protects big business. It cannot be \"\"fixed\"\", as it is a flawed premise to begin with. You don't own ideas. &gt;There was never any problem with the concept of patents. Pragmatically speaking, the patent and copyright system has failed and has created the problems we see today. Ideologically, it's a flawed premise to begin with. It's time to move on. &gt;The problem lies with government. As long as businesses are allowed to legally bribe politicians, the laws will be altered to favor those businesses. I would agree to this point, but with a different conclusion. The problem *does* lie with government in that a centralized concentration of power will *always* attract the most corrupt. Decentralization (and if I had my druthers, abolishment) of such power is the best way to combat this. This means a strong federal government is a honeypot for the worst humanity has to offer. As long as there are politicians who command armies (both domestic and abroad), business will continue to seek alliance with them, whether for purposes self-preservation, or seeking of special privilege in the way of patents, copyrights, regulatory capture, rent-seeking, cartelization, and all of the other ways government distorts the free market. These are the men who use the law to grant monopoly in the name of preventing monopoly.\"" }, { "docid": "588954", "title": "", "text": "\"Just came across [this Economist](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608751-restricting-companies-moving-abroad-no-substitute-corporate-tax-reform-how-stop) article, they make it sound quite straight forward and I don't think they can be called totalitarian leftists by any stretch. Here is the money quote. &gt; America’s corporate tax has two horrible flaws. The first is the tax rate, which at 35% is the highest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD. Yet it raises less revenue than the OECD average thanks to myriad loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything from machinery investment to NASCAR race tracks. Last year these breaks cost $150 billion in forgone revenue, more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes. &gt; &gt; The second flaw is that America levies tax on a company’s income no matter where in the world it is earned. In contrast, every other large rich country taxes only income earned within its borders. Here, too, America’s system is absurdly ineffective at collecting money. Firms do not have to pay tax on foreign profits until they bring them back home. Not surprisingly, many do not: American multinationals have some $2 trillion sitting on their foreign units’ balance-sheets, and growing. It seems clear that the 35% rate is not the driving reason for these huge companies doing inversions. That 35% rate should almost certainly be cut down, but the loopholes and tax breaks need to stop as a condition of a rate cut. Clearly this is not a dead simple issue, but I just don't want to hear the silly argument of \"\"oh our poor mega corporations are having to pay the highest taxes in the world!\"\" when the tax environment in the US is clearly rigged in their favor. Small and mid sized companies that can't afford their own Congressman sure are getting fucked though, and that makes me sad.\"" }, { "docid": "287930", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't go into a stock market related investment if you plan on buying a house in 4-5 years, you really need to tie money up in stocks for 10 years plus to be confident of a good return. Of course, you might do well in stocks over 4-5 years but historically it's unlikely. I'd look for a safe place to save some money for the deposit, the more deposit you can get the better as this will lower your loan to valuation (LTV) and therefore you may find you get a better interest rate for your mortgage. Regards the pension, are you paying the maximum you can into the company scheme? If not then top that up as much as you can, company schemes tend to be good as they have low charges, but check the documentation about that and make sure that is the case. Failing that stakeholder pension schemes can also have very low charges, have a look at what's available." }, { "docid": "516797", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \"\"normal\"\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\"" }, { "docid": "335319", "title": "", "text": "I like many of the answers, but here is a summary of reasons: Almost everyone will retire, and it is almost certain that government or company pensions schemes will not alone give you a lifestyle you would like in retirement. Money invested early is worth much more in retirement than money invested late, thanks to the miracle of compound interest. In some countries there are tax advantages to investing a little bit of money every year, compared with nothing for a few years and then a lump sum later. Much investment advice is given by investment consultants, who profit when you make investments. It's always in their interests to have you invest as early and as often as possible (that doesn't invalidate the first three reasons). Having said that, it isn't always in your best interests to invest in retirement funds very heavily at the start of your career. You might want to consider paying off any debts, or saving for a house, or even having a bit of fun while you are young enough to enjoy it. That back-packing trip to Nepal is going to be a lot easier when you are 23 than when you are 40 with kids." }, { "docid": "575918", "title": "", "text": "Is there any truth to this, or is this another niche scam that's been brewing the last few years? While it may not be an outright scam, such schemes do tend to be on borderline of scams. Technically most of what is being said claimed can be true, however in reality such windfall gains never happen to the investors. Whatever gains are there will be cornered by the growers, trades, other entities in supply chain leaving very little to the investors. It is best to stay away from such investments." }, { "docid": "391277", "title": "", "text": "Good subs to research ICOs? I am all for cryptocurrencies and their usage, but I believe ICOs are an unfettered bubble. No one can raise millions in seconds from crowdfunded sources without it being a pump and dump scheme ... or a pretty well advertised product that everyone wants a piece (i.e. an IPO with a roadshow, but without the hassle of investment bankers or share placement or underwriting). Laying out my thoughts in case you see any glaring faults right there. If not, sources would be appreciated." }, { "docid": "543856", "title": "", "text": "the pots will be negligible, however this capital could be used better elsewhere if I was to withdraw them. You won't be able to withdraw the money. Notwithstanding the recent 'pension freedom' changes, money put into a pension is still inaccessible until age 55 at the very earliest, and probably later by the time you get there. You should have been Advised of this every time you enrolled into a scheme, although it may well have been buried in something you were given to read. The best you can do (and what I would recommend, although of course this post isn't Advice) is to transfer the pensions to a personal pension, for example a SIPP, wherein you will be able to control where the money is invested. Most SIPP providers will gladly help you with such transfers. Would it be beneficial to keep these smaller pots with their respected schemes The reason I suggest transferring is that leaving the funds in workplace schemes that are no longer being contributed to is a surefire way of finding yourself invested in poorly-performing neglected funds, earning money for no one beyond the scheme provider." } ]

[ { "docid": "240215", "title": "", "text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "502567", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately it is not possible for an ordinary person to become an accredited investor without a career change. Gaining any legal certification in investments typically require sponsorship from an investment company (which you would be working for). There are reasons why these kinds of investments are not available to ordinary people directly, and you should definitely consult an RIA (registered investment adviser) before investing in something that isn't extremely standardized (traded on an major exchange). The issue with these kinds of investments is that they are not particularly standardized (in terms of legal structure/settlement terms). Registered investment advisers and other people who manage investments professionally are (theoretically) given specific training to understand these kinds of non-standard investments and are (theoretically) qualified to analyze the legal documentation of these, make well informed investment decisions, and make sure that their investors are not falling into any kind of pyramid scheme. There are many many kinds of issues that can arise when investing in startups. What % of the company/ the company's profits are you entitled to? How long can the company go without paying you a dividend? Do they have to pay you a dividend at all? How liquid will your investment in the company be? Unfortunately it is common for startups to accept investment but have legal restrictions on their investors ability to sell their stake in the business, and other non-standard contract clauses. For example, some investment agreements have a clause which states that you can only sell your stake in the business to a person who already owns a stake in the business. This makes your investment essentially worthless - the company could run for an exponential amount of time without paying you a dividend. If you are not able to sell your stake in the company you will not be able to earn any capital gains either. The probability of a startup eventually going public is extremely small.. so in this scenario it is likely you will end up gaining no return investment (though you can be happy to know you helped a company grow!) Overall, the restrictions for these kinds of investments exist to protect ordinary folks from making investing their savings into things that could get them burned. If you want to invest in companies on FundersClub build a relationship with an RIA and work with that person to invest your money. It is easier, less risky, and not all that more expensive :)" }, { "docid": "140567", "title": "", "text": "Insurance in India is offered by Private companies as well [ICICI, Maxbupa, SBI, Max and tons of other companies]. These are priavte companies, as Insurance sectors one has to look for long term stability, not everyone can just open an Insurance company, there are certain capital requirements. Initially the shareholding pattern was that Indian company should have a majority shareholding, any foreign company can have only 26% share's. This limit has now been extended to 49%, so while the control of the private insurance company will still be with Indian's the foreign companies can invest upto 49%. It's a economic policy decission and the outcome whether positive or negative will be known after 10 years of implemenation :) Pro's: - Brings more funds into the Insurance segment, there by bringing strength to the company - Better global practise on risk & data modelling may reduce premium for most - Innovation in product offering - More Foreign Exchange for country that is badly needed. Con's: - The Global companies may hike premium to make more profits. - They may come up with complex products that common man will not understand and will lead to loss - They may take back money anytime as they are here for profit and not for cause. Pension today is offered only by Government Companies. There is a move to allow private companies to offer pension. Today life insurance companies can launch Pension schemes, however on maturity the annuity amount needs to be invested into LIC to get an annuity [monthly pension]." }, { "docid": "249273", "title": "", "text": "Dow Jones is a meaningless index that is only ever referenced in the media. It’s fundamentally flawed because the index constituents are weighted by share price, which is nonsensical (ie a $100 stock has a bigger impact on the index than a $50 stock) as opposed to the S&amp;P500 which is market cap weighted (a $100 billion company has a bigger impact than a $50 billion company). People in the investment industry focus on the S&amp;P index and pay zero attention to the Dow." }, { "docid": "121798", "title": "", "text": "\"It's called a \"\"Pyramid scheme\"\". Its illegal in almost every country of the Western world. You're not going to earn lifetime income, of course, and these things collapse pretty quickly. Most of the \"\"common folks\"\" don't return the investment, its the organizers who take the money. Sometimes they run, most times they end up in jail. The way these schemes work is that they pay the early \"\"investors\"\" from the fees paid by new \"\"investors\"\". As long as a steady stream of new people keep signing up and paying into it those who got in very early make money. The idea is based on the geometric procession of each new person signing up two or more people, and those people doing the same. Pretty quickly at that rate you need to sign up every human being on the planet to keep the new money flowing in to make it work, which obviously is not realistic. Ultimately a small % of the people (if they can stay out of jail) will make a big amount of money the vast majority of \"\"investors\"\" get stiffed.\"" }, { "docid": "109540", "title": "", "text": "Guaranteed 8.2% annual return sounds too good to be true. Am I right? Are there likely high fees, etc.? You're right. Guaranteed annual return is impossible, especially when you're talking about investments for such a long period of time. Ponzi (and Madoff) schemed their investors using promises of guaranteed return (see this note in Wikipedia: In some cases returns were allegedly determined before the account was even opened.[72]). Her financial advisor doesn't charge by the hour--he takes a commission. So there's obviously some incentive to sell her things, even if she may not need them. Definitely not a good sign, if the advisor gets a commission from the sale then he's obviously not an advisor but a sales person. The problem with this kind of investment is that it is very complex, and it is very hard to track. The commission to the broker makes it hard to evaluate returns (you pay 10% upfront, and it takes awhile to just get that money back, before even getting any profits), and since you're only able to withdraw in 20 years or so - there's no real way to know if something wrong, until you get there and discover that oops- no money! Also, many annuity funds (if not all) limit withdrawals to a long period, i.e.: you cannot touch money for like 10 years from investment (regardless of the tax issues, the tax deferred investment can be rolled over to another tax deferred account, but in this case - you can't). I suggest you getting your own financial advisor (that will work for you) to look over the details, and talk to your mother if it is really a scam." }, { "docid": "56742", "title": "", "text": "The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities. That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments. High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive. Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead. So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening. And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market. But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme. But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market. So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans." }, { "docid": "264476", "title": "", "text": "It's best to roll over a pension plan, you don't want to pay the penalties especially when you are young. Rolling over into another scheme, or rolling over into a scheme that is somewhat self directed would avoid the penalty and could help you achieve higher returns should you feel you will perform better. Making regular monthly or biweekly contributions is imperative so that you catch compounded returns on your investments. Since you state that you are inexperienced, I would suggest rolling over into the new scheme and sitting with the pension advisor for the company, ie Prudential, etc. Telling them some key information like your age, in how many years you expect to retire, your current income, your desired pension income per year and such will greatly help them ensure that you come as close to your goal as possible, providing nothing horrendous happens in the market." }, { "docid": "35153", "title": "", "text": "\"So, if I understand the investment program here: You have $100 of tax withheld from your salary at the end of Jan, Feb, Mar... until December. This withholding is in excess of the expected tax for the year. You use the appropriate H&R Block product to file your taxes, and H&R Block gets your refund of $1200 on March 1st. H&R Block adds 10& and give you e-cards for $1320 On the face of it, this represents a return of 15.19% per year, compounded monthly. However, there are a few wrinkles that might make the scheme less inviting: You'll get a receipt for miscellaneous income from H&R Block, and pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". The quoted return is only realized if you can use the e-cards immediately. If they sit around for a while, then they aren't earning any interest. If you sell them for cash at a discount (if you even can!) then this reduces the return. If you don't cash them at all, they're a total loss. This offer was announced on Jan 15, 2015. So you can't go back and put it in place for 2014. And if you set it up for withholding in 2015, is there any guarantee that it the same offer will be in place when filing in 2016?\"" }, { "docid": "153973", "title": "", "text": "It seems that any news article headline that includes a dollar amount or a percentage is click bait. In the best cases they're sensationalizing a mundane study. In the worst cases the study is as flawed as the headline. In either case the liberal arts major has their revenge on the world." }, { "docid": "451622", "title": "", "text": "I wonder if any successful artificial intelligence project will ultimately need to make shortcuts that lead to the same flaws as human intelligence? (If I might pretend greater knowledge of the human mind than I have - this means: tendency to be correct to a certain level of precision rather than completely correct, to fudge, to round edges, to go by guidelines rather than rules.)" }, { "docid": "145353", "title": "", "text": "One of the reasons is also general distrust to the government. Another one is that there exist special interest group which profits from the complicated scheme, keep adding special cases, and has stronger financial situation that the opponents of such complex scheme. People do not trust government, or companies, to act in their best interests. So they (we) waste huge amount of time and/or money to comply with byzantine income laws. In 2004 Democratic presidential primary, presidential candidate Wes Clark (who beyond being 4-star general has also master degree in economics from Oxford, and taught economics in West point) proposed similar scheme: for people with income under 50K, employer would do all the (simple) paperwork, if desired, and get return. In the noise of the campaign, idea how to simplify taxes for half of the population was lost. Funny how the only candidate in recent history who was both professor of economics (not MBA, which is about business and profits) and distinguished military hero, could not get any traction in Democratic party." }, { "docid": "380773", "title": "", "text": "\"If this is your friend, and he that convinced he will \"\"get rich\"\" from this then there's really nothing you CAN do. You've obviously done your best to explain the situation to him, but he's been caught up in their sales pitch, and that's more convincing to him. I worked in sales for many years, and the answers he gives you (the one about not needing to know the details of how your smartphone works is a classic variation of typical objection-handling that salespeople are taught) proves that he has been sucked in by their scheme. At this stage, all you're going to do is ruin your friendship with him if you continue to press the matter, because he has made it clear he can't be convinced that this is anything other than legitimate. The reality is, he is probably in too deep at this stage to just walk away from it, so he has to convince himself that he made a wise choice. Schemes like this use a \"\"scarcity\"\" approach (there's only so much to go around, and if you don't get yours now then someone else will get it) coupled with ego-boosting (boy, Mr. Prospect, this is such a great opportunity, and you're one of only a few who are sophisticated enough to understand and take advantage of it) to get people to lower their guard and not ask a whole lot of probing questions. Nobody wants to feel stupid, and they don't want others to think they're stupid, so these schemes will present the information in such a way that ordinarily prudent questions come across as sounding dumb, making the questioner seem not so smart. Rather than walking away from it, peoples' pride will sometimes make them double down on it, and they'll just go along with it to come across as though they get it, even when they really don't. The small payouts at early stages are a classic sign of a Ponzi scheme. Your friend will never listen to you as long as those little checks continue to come in, because to him they're absolute proof he's right and you're wrong. It's those checks (or payouts, however they're doing it) that will make him step up his efforts to recruit other people into the scheme or, worse yet, invest more of his own money into this. Keep in mind that in the end, you really have no power to do anything in this situation other than be his friend and try to use gentle persuasion. He's already made it clear that he isn't going to listen to your explanations about why this is a scam, for a couple reasons. First (and probably greatest), it would be an admission that he's dumb, or at least not as smart as you, and who wants that? Second, he continues to get little checks that reinforce the fact this must be \"\"real\"\", or why else would he be getting this money? Third, he has already demonstrated his commitment to this by quitting his job, so from his point of view, this has become an all-or-nothing ticket to wealth. The bottom line is, these schemes work because the sales pitch is powerful enough to overcome ordinary logic for people who think there just has to be an easy way to Easy Street. All you can do is just be there as his friend and hope that he sees the light before the damage (to himself and anyone else) gets too great. You can't stop him from what he's doing any more than you can stop the sun from rising as long the message (and checks) he's getting from other people keep him convinced he's on the right path. EDIT After reading the comments posted in this thread, I do want to amend my statements, because many good points have been raised here. You obviously can't just sit by and do nothing while your friend talks others into taking the same (or worse) risks that he is. That's not morally right by any measure At the same time however, be VERY careful about how you go about this. Your friend, as you stated, sounds pretty much like he's all in with this scheme, so there's definitely going to be some serious emotional commitment to it on his part as well. Anyone and everything that threatens what he sees as his ticket to Easy Street could easily become a target when this all comes crashing down, as it inevitably will. You could very well be the cause of that in his eyes, especially if he knows you've been discouraging people from buying into this nightmare. People are NOT rational creatures when it comes to money losses. It's called \"\"sunken costs\"\", where they'll continue to chase their losses on the rationale they'll make up for it if they just don't give up. The more your friend committed to this, the worse his anxieties about losing, so he'll do whatever he has to in order to save his position. This is what gamblers do and why the house does so well for itself. Some have suggested making anonymous flyers or other means of communicating that don't expose you as the person spreading the message, and that's one suggestion. However, the problem with this is that since the receiver has no idea who sent the message, they're not likely to give it the kind of credibility or notice that they would to something passed to them by a person they know and trust, and your anonymous message will have little weight in the face of the persuasive pitch that got your friend to commit his own money (and future). Another problem, as you've noted, is that you don't travel in the same circles as the people he's likely to recruit, so how would you go about warning them? How would they view their first contact with you when it comes with a message not to trust what someone else they already know is about to tell them? Would they write it off as someone who's butty? Hard to tell. Another huge ploy of these schemes is that they tend to preemptively strike at what you propose doing -- that is, warning people to stay away. They do this by projecting the people giving the warnings as losers who didn't see the opportunity for themselves and now want to keep others away from their own financial success. They'll portray you as someone who isn't smart enough to see this \"\"huge opportunity\"\", and since you can't understand it, you don't think anyone else does either. They'll point out that if you were so good with finances, why aren't you already successful? These guys are very good, and they have an answer for every objection you can raise, whether its to them or to someone else. They've spent a long time honing their message, which makes it difficult for anyone to say something persuasive enough to sway others away from being duped. This is a hard path, no doubt. I hope you are able to warn others away. Just be aware that it may come at a cost to you as well, and be prepared for what that might be. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "115709", "title": "", "text": "\"Sometimes an assumptions is so fundamentally flawed that it essentially destroys the relevance and validity of any modelling outputs. \"\"Obviously, we're assuming the company can pay it back\"\" Is one of those assumptions. The person gets a notes stating that they will get $525 'IN ONE YEAR' You need to divide $525/(1+Cost of Capital)^n n being the number of periods to find out what the note will be worth today. Google 'Present Value of an Annuity' to deal with debt that is more complex than you have $500 now and give me $525 in a year...\"" }, { "docid": "391835", "title": "", "text": "I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme." }, { "docid": "17823", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"" }, { "docid": "480802", "title": "", "text": "ok... That's not a risk of making an investment. That's the risk of an investment failing. My point is, the workers ARE actually the ones taking the biggest risk - their lives, health, family and homes DEPEND on the companies employing them. And if those companies fail, they need a financial cushion to get them into the next job just like investors need some investments to make a profit to cushion the ones that don't. But as it stands now, the investors are getting every pillow in the land and the workers are left to hit solid rock as they fall. They aren't getting a comparable share of the profits they are making - not nearly enough to provide any sort of savings scheme anyway - when the companies and investors are rolling in profits. And that's NOT the way to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "493841", "title": "", "text": "Yeah but that's my point it's irrational and frankly foolish. I'm pointing out the logical flaw when Floyd talks about how he makes smart investments. He wants a good return on his strip club but will burn millions by not investing in the market?" }, { "docid": "577832", "title": "", "text": "Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing." }, { "docid": "3481", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes it's entirely possible; see below. If you can't find anything on transfers out (partial or otherwise) on anyone's site it's because they don't want to give anyone ideas. I have successfully done exactly what you're proposing earlier this year, transferring most of the value from my employer's group personal pension scheme - also Aviva! - to a much lower-cost SIPP. The lack of any sign of movement by Aviva to post-RDR \"\"clean priced\"\" charge-levels on funds was the final straw for me. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner! Transfer paperwork was initiated from the SIPP end but I was careful to make clear to HR people and Aviva's rep (or whatever group-scheme/employee benefits middleman organization he was from) that I was not exiting the company scheme and expected my employee and matching employer contributions to continue unchanged (and that I'd not be happy if some admin mess up led to me missing a month's contributions). There's a bit more on the affair in a thread here. Aviva's rep did seem to need a bit of a prod to finally get it to happen. With hindsight my original hope of an in-specie transfer does seem naive, but the out-of-the-market time was shorter and less scary than anticipated. Just in case you're unaware of it, Monevator's online broker list is an excellent resource to help decide who you might use for a SIPP; cheapest choice depends on level of funds and what you're likely to hold in it and how often you'll trade.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "135363", "title": "", "text": "Investopedia states: While early exercise is generally not advisable, because the time value inherent in the option premium is lost upon doing so, there are certain circumstances under which early exercise may be advantageous. For example, an investor may choose to exercise a call option that is deeply in-the-money (such an option will have negligible time value) just before the ex-dividend date of the underlying stock. This will enable the investor to capture the dividend paid by the underlying stock, which should more than offset the marginal time value lost due to early exercise. So the question is how well do you see the time value factor here?" } ]

[ { "docid": "255927", "title": "", "text": "I think it depends on your broker. Some brokers will not try to auto exercise in the money options. Others will try to do the exercise it if you have available funds. Your best bet, if find yourself in that situation, is to sell the option on the open market the day of or slightly before expiration. Put it on your calendar and don't forget, you could loose your profits. @#2 Its in the best interest of your broker to exercise because they get a commission. I think they are used to this situation where there is a lack of funds. Its not like bouncing a check. You will need to check with your broker on this. @#3 I think many or most options traders never intend on buying the underling stock. Therefore no, they do not always make sure there is enough funds to buy." }, { "docid": "541928", "title": "", "text": "American options (like those on ADBE) can be exercised by the holder anytime before expiration. They will be exercised automatically at expiration if they are in the money. However, if there is still time before expiration (as in this case), and they are not extremely in the money, there is probably extrinsic value to the option, and you should sell it, not exercise it. European options are only automatically exercised at expiration, and only if they are in the money. These are usually cash settled on products like SPX or VIX. They can not be exercised before expiration, but can be sold anytime." }, { "docid": "166307", "title": "", "text": "Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for. One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies." }, { "docid": "166597", "title": "", "text": "Options are contractual instruments. Most options you'll run into are contracts which allow you to buy or sell stock at a given price at some time in the future, if you feel like it (it gives you the option). These are Call and Put options, respectively (for buying the stock and selling the stock). If you have a lot of money in an index fund ETF, you may be able to protect your portfolio against a market decline by (e.g.) buying Put options against the ETF for a substantially lower price than the index fund currently trades at. If the market crashes and your fund falls in value significantly, you can exercise the options, selling the fund at the price that your option has specified (to the counter-party of your contract). This is the risk that the option mitigates against. Even if you don't have one particular fund with your investments, you could still buy a put option on a similar fund, and resell it to another person in lieu of exercise (they would be capable of buying the stock and performing the exercise themselves for profit if necessary). In general, if you are buying an option for safety, it should be an option either on something you own, or something whose price behavior will mimic something you own. You will note that options are linked to the price of stocks. Futures are contracts whose values are linked to the price of other things, typically commodities such as oil, gold, or orange juice. Their behaviors may diverge. With an option you can have a contractual guarantee on the exact investment you're trying to protect. (Additionally, many commodities' value may fall at the same time that stock investments fall: during economic contractions which reduce industrial activity, resulting in lower profits for firms and less demand for commodities.) You may also note that there are other structures that options may have - PUT options on index funds or similar instruments are probably most specifically relevant to your interests. The downside of protecting yourself with options is that it costs money to buy this option, and the option eventually expires, so you may lose money. Essentially, you are buying safety and risk-tolerance from the option contract's counterparty, and safety is not free. I cannot inform you what level of safety is appropriate for your portfolio's needs, but more safety is more expensive." }, { "docid": "428399", "title": "", "text": "An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money." }, { "docid": "195152", "title": "", "text": "Put options are contracts to sell. You pay me a fee for the right to put the stock (or other underlying security) in my hands if you want to. That happens on a specific date (the strike date) and a specified price (the strike price). You can decide not to exercise that right, but I must follow through and let you sell it to me if you want to. Put options can be used by the purchaser to cap losses. For example: You purchase a PUT option for GE Oct19 13.00 from me. On October 19th, you can make me let you sell your GE stock to me for $13.00 a share. If the price for GE has fallen to $12.00, that would be a good idea. If its now at $15.00 a share, you will probably keep the GE or sell it at the current market price. Call options are contracts to buy. The same idea only in the other direction: You pay me a fee for the right to call the stock away from me. Calls also have a strike date and strike price. Like a put, you can choose not to exercises it. You can choose to buy the stock from me (on the strike date for the strike price), but I have to let you buy it from me if you want to. For example: You purchase a CALL option for GE Oct19 16.00 option from me. On October 19th, you can buy my GE stock from me for $16.00 a share. If the current price is $17.50, you should make me let you buy if from me for $16.00. If its less than $16.00, you could by it at the current market price for less. Commonly, options are for a block of 100 shares of the underlying security. Note: this is a general description. Options can be very complicated. The fee you pay for the option and the transaction fees associated with the shares affects whether or not exercising is financially beneficial. Options can be VERY RISKY. You can loose all your money as there is no innate value in the option, only how it relates to the underlying security. Before your brokerage will let you trade, there are disclosures you must read and affirm that you understand the risk." }, { "docid": "401447", "title": "", "text": "SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&amp;P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price." }, { "docid": "143655", "title": "", "text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"" }, { "docid": "484778", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"" }, { "docid": "469382", "title": "", "text": "If you are in the money at expiration you are going to get assigned to the person on the other side of the contract. This is an extremely high probability. The only randomness comes from before expiration. Where you may be assigned because a holder exercised the option before expiration, this can unbalance some of your strategies. But in exchange, you get all the premium that was still left on the option when they exercised. An in the money option, at expiration, has no premium. The value of your in the money option is Current Stock price - Strike Price, for a call. And Strike price - Current Stock price, for a put. Thats why there is no free lunch in this scenario." }, { "docid": "277311", "title": "", "text": "Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%. Equities are convertible to cash presumably at the bid, so during a call exercise, the exercisor or exercisor's broker pays cash for the underlying at the exercise price, and any deficit is financed with debt, thus underlying can be sold to satisfy that debt or be sold for cash as one normally would. To preempt a forced exercise as a call holder, one could short the underlying, but this will be more expensive, and since probably no broker allows shorting against the box because of its intended use to circumvent capital gains taxes by fraud. The least expensive way to trade out of options positions is to close them themselves rather than take delivery." }, { "docid": "271109", "title": "", "text": "The put vs call assignment risk, is actually the reverse: in-the-money calls are more likely to be exercised early than puts. Exercising a call locks in profit for the option holder because they can buy the shares at below market price, and immediately sell them at the higher market price. If there are dividends due, the risk is even higher. By contrast, exercising an in-the-money put locks in a loss for the holder, so it's less common." }, { "docid": "538054", "title": "", "text": "It is possible to exercise an out of the money option contract. Reasons to do this: You want a large stake of voting shares at any price without moving the market and could not get enough options contracts at a near the money strike price, so you decided to go out of the money. Then exercised all the contracts and suddenly you have a large influential position in the stock and nobody saw it coming. This may be favorable if the paper loss is less than the loss of time value that would have been incurred if you chose contracts near the money at further expiration dates, in search of liquidity. Some convoluted tax reason." }, { "docid": "119976", "title": "", "text": "\"One alternative strategy you may want to consider is writing covered calls on the stock you have \"\"just sitting there\"\". This will allow you to earn a return (the premium from the calls) without necessarily having to give up your holding. As a brief overview, \"\"options\"\" are derivatives that give the holder the right (or option) to buy or sell shares at a specified price. Holders of call options with a strike prike $x on a particular security have the right to purchase that security at the strike price $x. Conversely, holders of put options with a strike price of $x have the right to sell that security at the strike price $x. Always on the other side of a call or put option is a person that has sold the option, which is called \"\"writing\"\" the option. If this person writes a call option, then he will be obligated to sell a certain amount of stock (100 shares per contract) at the strike price if that option is exercised. A writer of a put option will be obligated to by 100 shares per contract at the strike price if that option is exercised. Covered calls involve writing call contracts on stock that you own. For example, say you own 100 shares of AAPL, and that AAPL is currently trading for $330. You decide to write a Jan 21, 2012 call on these shares at a strike price of $340, earning you a premium of say $300. Two things can now happen: if the price of AAPL is not at least $340 on January 21, then the options are \"\"out of the money\"\" and will expire unexercised (why exercise an option to buy at $340 when you can buy at the currently cheaper market price?). You keep your AAPL stock plus the $300 premium you earn. If, however, the price of AAPL is greater than $340, the option will be exercised and you will now be required to sell the shares you own at $340. You will earn a return of $10/share ($340-$330), plus the $300 premium from the call option. You still make out in the end, but have unfortunately incurred an opportunity cost, as had you not written the call option you would have been able to sell at the market price, which is higher than the $340 strike price. Covered calls are considered relatively safe and conservative, however the strategy is most effective for stocks that are expected to stay within a relatively narrow price range for the duration of the contract. They do provide one option of earning additional money on stocks you are currently holding, albeit at the risk of giving up some returns if the stock price rises above the strike price.\"" }, { "docid": "507828", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question. I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising. You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place. Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of \"\"cancelling\"\" an option you purchased: No, you cannot \"\"cancel\"\" an option contract, per se. But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market. When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value. Once you sell, you're back to \"\"no position\"\". That's not the same as \"\"cancelled\"\", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who \"\"sold to open\"\" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote. However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market. Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time. This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a \"\"buy to close\"\", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position. (The other kind of buy is the \"\"buy to open\"\".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who \"\"sold to open\"\" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract. For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation. Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having to find the original opposite party. [...]   [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment. (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: \"\"I know my counter party cannot sell his shares\"\" ... that's not strictly true. You are thinking of a covered call. But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares. Look up Naked call (Wikipedia). Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call \"\"is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk\"\". The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC).\"" }, { "docid": "528052", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \"\"leverage\"\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\"" }, { "docid": "465950", "title": "", "text": "This is typically an issue for local law and regulation. Once one person moves out, I would recommend one of the following options: Generally speaking, if there are clear records of all of the payments made by both parties, all of the costs associated with the maintenance and who made what use of the place, the final ownership can be resolved fairly even in the absence of a clear agreement. The pain and hassle to do it, though, is generally not worth the effort - even if it's an amicable relationship between the two owners. Your best bet is to agree as early as possible on what you plan to do, and to write it down - if you didn't have a contract before moving in together, write one up now." }, { "docid": "332938", "title": "", "text": "\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \"\"invest in yourself\"\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\"" }, { "docid": "263988", "title": "", "text": "Making a profit in trading is not a function of time, it's a function of information, speed, and consistency. Regardless of how much time you spend learning about trading, there is no guarantee that you will ever become profitable because you will always be competing against a counter-party who is either better- or more poorly-informed than you are. Since trading is a zero-sum game, someone is always a winner and someone else is always a loser. So you need to be either better informed than your counter-party, or you need to be as well informed as them but beat them to the punch. You also need to be able to be consistent, or else eventually you will get wiped out when the unexpected happens or you make a mistake. This is why resources such as full-time professional analysts, high-speed trading terminals/platforms, and sophisticated algorithms can provide significant advantages. Personally, I think that people with talent and those kinds of resources would take all my lunch money, so I don't trade and stick to passive investing. One funny story, I once knew a trader who was in the money on a particular trade and went out to have a drink to celebrate. The next day, she remembered that she had forgotten to exercise the options. Luckily, they had expired while in the money, and by rule had been exercised automatically as a result." } ]

[ { "docid": "345410", "title": "", "text": "The crucial insight is that the alternative to early exercise of an American call is not necessarily to hold it to expiry, but to sell it. And selling it, at its value, is always better than exercising it. Note that this holds only for options on assets that don't pay dividends. Here's the proof, using Put-Call-Parity. We know that at expiry T, we have (using a Call and a Put both struck at K): C(T) - P(T) = S(T) - K (if this is not clear to you, consider the case where S is less than, equal to, or greater than K at maturity, and go through each of them.) If the stock S doesn't pay any dividends (and there is no cost of carry etc.), we can replicate both sides now at time 0; we just buy one call, sell one put (that gives us the left hand side), buy the stock, and borrow money so that at time T we have to repay K (that gives us the right hand side). That means that now, we only need to borrow df * K, where df is the discount factor, and is less than one (assuming the good old pre-2009 world where interest rates are positive). Thus: C(0) - P(0) = S(0) - df * K. Rearranging gives: C(0) = S(0) - df * K + P(0). That's the value of the call, if we sell it (or hold it). However, if we exercise, we only get: C_ex = S(0) - K Now, we see that C(0) > C_ex, because we subtract less (df*K < K), and add P(0)." } ]

[ { "docid": "484778", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"" }, { "docid": "166307", "title": "", "text": "Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for. One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies." }, { "docid": "7733", "title": "", "text": "Options that are not worth exercising just expire. Options that are worth exercising are typically exercised automatically as they expire, resulting in a transfer of stock between the entity that issued the option and the entity that holds it. OCC options automatically exercise when they expire if the value of the option exceeds the transaction cost for the stock transfer (1/4 point to 3/4 point depending)." }, { "docid": "581672", "title": "", "text": "Here is the answer from my brokerage: Regular equity monthly options expire on the 3rd Friday of every month. The last time to trade them is by market close at 4 PM Eastern time. The weekly options will expire on the Friday of that week, also with a last trading time of 4 PM Eastern time. Options that expire in the money by .01 or more are automatically exercised. If you are long an option that is out of the money at expiration, it will expire worthless. If you are short an option, even if it expires out of the money, you are still at risk for possible assignment since the long option holder always has the right to exercise an option prior to expiration.*" }, { "docid": "132288", "title": "", "text": "I do this often and have never had a problem. My broker is TD Ameritrade and they sent several emails (and even called and left a message) the week of expiry to remind me I had in the money options that would be expiring soon. Their policy is to automatically exercise all options that are at least $.01 in the money. One email was vaguely worded, but it implied that they could liquidate other positions to raise money to exercise the options. I would have called to clarify but I had no intention of exercising and knew I would sell them before expiry. In general though, much like with margin calls, you should avoid being in the position where the broker needs to (or can do) anything with your account. As a quick aside: I can't think of a scenario where you wouldn't be able to sell your options, but you probably are aware of the huge spreads that exist for many illiquid options. You'll be able to sell them, but if you're desperate, you may have to sell at the bid price, which can be significantly (25%?) lower than the ask. I've found this to be common for options of even very liquid underlyings. So personally, I find myself adjusting my limit price quite often near expiry. If the quote is, say, 3.00-3.60, I'll try to sell with a limit of 3.40, and hope someone takes my offer. If the price is not moving up and nobody is biting, move down to 3.30, 3.20, etc. In general you should definitely talk to your broker, like others have suggested. You may be able to request that they sell the options and not attempt to exercise them at the expense of other positions you have." }, { "docid": "345851", "title": "", "text": "\"Cart's answer describes well one aspects of puts: protective puts; which means using puts as insurance against a decline in the price of shares that you own. That's a popular use of puts. But I think the wording of your question is angling for another strategy: Writing puts. Consider: Cart's strategy refers to the buyer of a put. But, on the transaction's other side is a seller of the put – and ultimately somebody created or wrote that put contract in the first place! That first seller of the put – that is, the seller that isn't just selling one they themselves bought – is the put writer. When you write a put, you are taking on the obligation to buy the other side's stock at the put exercise price if the stock price falls below that exercise price by the expiry date. For taking on the obligation, you receive a premium, like how an insurance company charges a premium to insure against a loss. Example: Imagine ABC Co. stock is trading at $25.00. You write a put contract agreeing to buy 100 shares of ABC at $20.00 per share (the exercise price) by a given expiration date. Say you receive $2.00/share premium from the put buyer. You now have the obligation to purchase the shares from the put buyer in the event they are below $20.00 per share when the option expires – or, technically any time before then, if the buyer chooses to exercise the option early. Assuming no early assignment, one of two things will happen at the option expiration date: ABC trades at or above $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will expire worthless in the hands of the put buyer. You will have pocketed the $200 and be absolved from your obligation. This case, where ABC trades above the exercise price, is the maximum profit potential. ABC trades below $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will be assigned and you'll need to fork over $2000 to the put buyer in exchange for his 100 ABC shares. If those shares are worth less than $18.00 in the market, then you've suffered a loss to the extent they are below that price (times 100), because remember – you pocketed $200 premium in the first place. If the shares are between $18.00 to $20.00, you're still profitable, but not to the full extent of the premium received. You can see that by having written a put it's possible to acquire ABC stock at a price lower than the market price – because you received some premium in the process of writing your put. If you don't \"\"succeed\"\" in acquiring shares on your first write (because the shares didn't get below the exercise price), you can continue to write puts and collect premium until you do get assigned. I have read the book \"\"Money for Nothing (And Your Stocks for FREE!)\"\" by Canadian author Derek Foster. Despite the flashy title, the book essentially describes Derek's strategy for writing puts against dividend-paying value stocks he would love to own. Derek picks quality companies that pay a dividend, and uses put writing to get in at lower-than-market prices. Four Pillars reviewed the book and interviewed Derek Foster: Money for Nothing: Book Review and Interview with Derek Foster. Writing puts entails risk. If the stock price drops to zero then you'll end up paying the put exercise price to acquire worthless shares! So your down-side can easily be multiples of the premium collected. Don't do this until and unless you understand exactly how this works. It's advanced. Note also that your broker isn't likely to permit you to write puts without having sufficient cash or margin in your account to cover the case where you are forced to buy the stock. You're better off having cash to secure your put buys, otherwise you may be forced into leverage (borrowing) when assigned. Additional Resources: The Montreal Exchange options guide (PDF) that Cart already linked to is an excellent free resource for learning about options. Refer to page 39, \"\"Writing secured put options\"\", for the strategy above. Other major options exchanges and organizations also provide high-quality free learning material:\"" }, { "docid": "440458", "title": "", "text": "1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110? Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110. For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price. That is a different scenario, and gets into the actual nature of options, where investors will arrange multiple simultaneous transactions in order to limit risk and retain reward within a certain band of future prices. As pointed out by @Nick R, this fee would be very significant, for a call option which had a price set below the current price. Typically, options are sold 'out of the money' initially, which means that at the current share price (at the time the option is purchased), executing the option would lose you money. If you purchase an 'in the money' option, the transaction cost initially would by higher than any apparent gain you might have by immediately executing the option. For a more realistic Options example, assume that it costs $15 initially to buy either the Call option, or the Put option. In that case, after buying both options as listed in your scenarios you would earn a profit if the share price exceeded $120 [The $120 sale price less the $90 call option = $30, which is your total fee initially], or dropped below $80 [The $110 Put price less the $80 purchase price = $30]. This type of transaction implies that you expect the price to either swing up, or swing down, but not fall within the band between $80-$120. Perhaps you might do this if there was an upcoming election or other known event, which might be a failure or success, and you think the market has not properly accounted for either scenario in advance. I will leave further discussion on that topic [arranging options of different prices to create specific bands of profitability / loss] to another answer (or other questions which likely already exist on this site, or in fact, other resources), because it gets more complicated after that point, and is outside the root of your question." }, { "docid": "444668", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \"\"day-trading\"\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\"" }, { "docid": "350748", "title": "", "text": "\"This is because volatility is cumulative and with less time there is less cumulative volatility. The time value and option value are tied to the value of the underlying. The value of the underlying (stock) is quite influenced by volatility, the possible price movement in a given span of time. Thirty days of volatility has a much broader spread of values than two days, since each day benefits from the possible price change of the prior days. So if a stock could move up to +/- 1% in a day, then compounded after 5 days it could be +5%, +0%, or -5%. In other words, this is compounded volatility. Less time means far less volatility, which is geometric and not linear. Less volatility lowers the value of the underlying. See Black-Scholes for more technical discussion of this concept. A shorter timeframe until option expiration means there are fewer days of compounded volatility. So the expected change in the underlying will decrease geometrically. The odds are good that the price at T-5 days will be close to the price at T-0, much more so than the prices at T-30 or T-90. Additionally, the time value of an American option is the implicit put value (or implicit call). While an \"\"American\"\" option lets you exercise prior to expiry (unlike a \"\"European\"\" option, exercised only at expiry), there's an implicit put option in a call (or an implicit call in a put option). If you have an American call option of 60 days and it goes into the money at 30 days, you could exercise early. By contract, that stock is yours if you pay for it (or, in a put, you can sell whenever you decide). In some cases, this may make sense (if you want an immediate payoff or you expect this is the best price situation), but you may prefer to watch the price. If the price moves further, your gain when you use the call may be even better. If the price goes back out of the money, then you benefited from an implicit put. It's as though you exercised the option when it went in the money, then sold the stock and got back your cash when the stock went out of the money, even though no actual transaction took place and this is all just implicit. So the time value of an American option includes the implicit option to not use it early. The value of the implicit option also decreases in a nonlinear fashion, since the value of the implicit option is subject to the same valuation principles. But the larger principle for both is the compounded volatility, which drops geometrically.\"" }, { "docid": "61919", "title": "", "text": "\"Alternatively you could exercise 12000 shares for $36000 and immediately sell 7200 shares to recover your exercise price. Then you use the remaining 4800 share to pay the exercise price of the remaining 8000 options. Both scenarios are equivalent but may have different fees associated, so it's worth checking the fine print. Tax wise: The above example is \"\"cash neutral before taxes\"\". The taxes associated with these transaction are substantial, so it's highly recommended to talk with a tax adviser. \"\"cash neutral after taxes\"\" depends highly on your specific tax situation.\"" }, { "docid": "119976", "title": "", "text": "\"One alternative strategy you may want to consider is writing covered calls on the stock you have \"\"just sitting there\"\". This will allow you to earn a return (the premium from the calls) without necessarily having to give up your holding. As a brief overview, \"\"options\"\" are derivatives that give the holder the right (or option) to buy or sell shares at a specified price. Holders of call options with a strike prike $x on a particular security have the right to purchase that security at the strike price $x. Conversely, holders of put options with a strike price of $x have the right to sell that security at the strike price $x. Always on the other side of a call or put option is a person that has sold the option, which is called \"\"writing\"\" the option. If this person writes a call option, then he will be obligated to sell a certain amount of stock (100 shares per contract) at the strike price if that option is exercised. A writer of a put option will be obligated to by 100 shares per contract at the strike price if that option is exercised. Covered calls involve writing call contracts on stock that you own. For example, say you own 100 shares of AAPL, and that AAPL is currently trading for $330. You decide to write a Jan 21, 2012 call on these shares at a strike price of $340, earning you a premium of say $300. Two things can now happen: if the price of AAPL is not at least $340 on January 21, then the options are \"\"out of the money\"\" and will expire unexercised (why exercise an option to buy at $340 when you can buy at the currently cheaper market price?). You keep your AAPL stock plus the $300 premium you earn. If, however, the price of AAPL is greater than $340, the option will be exercised and you will now be required to sell the shares you own at $340. You will earn a return of $10/share ($340-$330), plus the $300 premium from the call option. You still make out in the end, but have unfortunately incurred an opportunity cost, as had you not written the call option you would have been able to sell at the market price, which is higher than the $340 strike price. Covered calls are considered relatively safe and conservative, however the strategy is most effective for stocks that are expected to stay within a relatively narrow price range for the duration of the contract. They do provide one option of earning additional money on stocks you are currently holding, albeit at the risk of giving up some returns if the stock price rises above the strike price.\"" }, { "docid": "324564", "title": "", "text": "I have held an in the money long position on an option into expiration, on etrade, and nothing happened. (Scalping expiring options - high risk) The option expired a penny or two ITM, and was not worth exercising, nor did I have the purchasing power to exercise it. (AAPL) From etrade's website: Here are a few things to keep in mind about exercises and assignments: Equity options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. For example, a September $25 call will be automatically exercised if the underlying security's closing price is $25.01 or higher at expiration. If the closing price is below $25.01, you would need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1 with specific instructions for exercising the option. You would also need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker if the closing price is higher than $25.01 at expiration and you do not wish to exercise the call option. Index options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. Options that are out of the money will expire worthless. You may request to exercise American style options anytime prior to expiration. A request not to exercise options may be made only on the last trading day prior to expiration. If you'd like to exercise options or submit do-not-exercise instructions, call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1. You won't be charged our normal fee for broker-assisted trades, but the regular options commission will apply. Requests are processed on a best-efforts basis. When equity options are exercised or assigned, you'll receive a Smart Alert message letting you know. You can also check View Orders to see which stock you bought or sold, the number of shares, and the strike price. Notes: If you do not have sufficient purchasing power in your account to accept the assignment or exercise, your expiring options positions may be closed, without notification, on the last trading day for the specific options series. Additionally, if your expiring position is not closed and you do not have sufficient purchasing power, E*TRADE Securities may submit do-not-exercise instructions without notification. Find out more about options expiration dates." }, { "docid": "33394", "title": "", "text": "If you're talking about ADBE options, that is an American style option, which can be exercised at any time before expiration. You can exercise your options by calling your broker and instructing them to exercise. Your broker will charge you a nominal fee to do so. As an aside, you probably don't want to exercise the option right now. It still has a lot of time value left, which you'll lose if you exercise. Just sell the option if you don't think ADBE will keep going up." }, { "docid": "388571", "title": "", "text": "\"Number 2 cannot occur. You can buy the call back and sell the stock, but the broker won't force that #2 choice. To trade options, you must have a margin account. No matter how high the stock goes, once \"\"in the money\"\" the option isn't going to rise faster, so your margin % is not an issue. And your example is a bit troublesome to me. Why would a $120 strike call spike to $22 with only a month left? You've made the full $20 on the stock rise and given up any gain after that. That's all. The call owner may exercise at any time. Edit: @jaydles is right, there are circumstances where an option price can increase faster than the stock price. Options pricing generally follows the Black-Scholes model. Since the OP gave us the current stock price, option strike price, and time to expiration, and we know the risk free rate is <1%, you can use the calculator to change volatility. The number two scenario won't occur, however, because a covered call has no risk to the broker, they won't force you to buy the option back, and the option buyer has no motive to exercise it as the entire option value is time premium.\"" }, { "docid": "587768", "title": "", "text": "4.7 is a pretty low rate, especially if you are deducting that from your taxes. If you reduce the number by your marginal tax rate to get the real cost of the money you end up with a number that isn't far off from inflation, and also represents a pretty low 'yield' in terms of paying off the loan early. (e.g. if your marginal tax rate is 28%, then the net you are paying in interest after the tax deduction is 4.7 * .72 = 3.384) While I'm all for paying off loans with higher rates (since it's in effect the same as making that much risk free on the money) it doesn't make a lot of sense when you are down at 3.4 unless there is a strong 'security factor' (which really makes a difference to some folks) to be had that really helps you sleep at night. (to be realistic, for some folks close to retirement, there can be a lot to be said for the security of not having to worry about house payments, although you don't seem to be in that situation yet) As others have said, first make sure you have enough liquid 'emergency money' in something like a money market account, or a ladder of short term CD's If you are sure that the sprouts will be going to college, then there's a lot to be said for kicking a decent amount into a 529, Coverdell ESA (Educational Savings Account), uniform gift to minors account, or some combination of those. I'm not sure if any of those plans can be used for a kid that has not been born yet however. I'd recommend http://www.savingforcollege.com as a good starting point to get more information on your various options. As with retirement savings, money put in earlier has a lot more 'power' over the final balance due to compounding interest, so there's a lot to be said for starting early, although depending on what it takes to qualify for the plans there could be such a thing as too early ;-) ). There's nothing wrong with Managed mutual funds as long as the fund objective and investing style is in alignment with your objectives and risk tolerance; The fund is giving you a good return relative to the market as a whole; You are not paying high fees or load charges; You are not losing a lot to taxes. I would always look at the return after expenses when comparing to other options, and if the money is not in a tax deferred account, also look at what sort of tax burden you will be faced with. A fund that trades a lot will generate more short term gains which means more taxes than compared to a more passive fund. Anything lost to taxes is money lost to you so needs to come out of the total return when you calculate that. Sometimes such funds are better off as a choice inside an IRA or 401K, and you can instead use more tax efficient vehicles for money where you have to pay the taxes every year on the gains. The reason a lot of folks like index funds better is that: Given your described age, it's not appropriate now, but in the long run as you get closer to retirement, you may want to start looking at building up some investments that are geared more towards generating income, such as bonds, or depending on taxes where you live, Municipal bonds. In any case, the more money you can set aside for retirement now, both inside and outside of tax deferred accounts, the sooner you will get to the point of the 'critical mass' you need to retire, at that point you can work because you want to, not because you have to." }, { "docid": "52458", "title": "", "text": "&gt; But, it seems like the pool is adding value out of nowhere! Options don't simply exercise in the void. There are proceeds from the exercise (option-holders must pay into the company). This amount is an additional investment in the company that hasn't precisely materialized yet, but is generally expected to (and is difficult to alter, as it's likely part of an employment contract)." }, { "docid": "457059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\"" }, { "docid": "575408", "title": "", "text": "An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules." }, { "docid": "172587", "title": "", "text": "Can someone recommend a textbook (or other resource) that provides a rigorous introduction to finance for someone with a mathematical background? Ideally, something that provides both a theoretical background for the pricing of assets generally and moves to mores specific instruments with quantitative exercises along the way?" } ]

[ { "docid": "157759", "title": "", "text": "For a deep in the money, it almost makes no difference because the intrinsic value, the price of the option, is seldom far above the liquidation value, the price of the underlying less the strike price. For an at the money, ceteris paribus, an early exercise would immediately cut the value of the option to 0; however, life is not so simple as JB King has shown. Purely theoretically, for an at or near the money option, an early exercise will be an instantaneous cost because the value after exercise is less than the previously trading or implied option price." } ]

[ { "docid": "477588", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, if it's an American style option. American style options may be exercised at any time prior to expiration (even if they're not in-the-money). Generally, you are required to deliver or accept delivery of the underlying by the beginning of the next trading day. If you are short, you may be chosen by the clearinghouse to fulfill the exercise (a process called \"\"assignment\"\"). Because the clearinghouse is the counter-party to every options trade, you can be assigned even if the specific person who purchased the option you wrote didn't exercise, but someone else who holds a long position did. Similarly, you might not be assigned if that person did exercise. The clearinghouse randomly chooses a brokerage to fulfill an assignment, and the brokerage will randomly choose an individual account. If you're going to be writing options, especially using spreads, you need to have a plan ahead of time on what to do if one of your legs gets assigned. This is more likely to happen just before a dividend payment, if the payment is more than the remaining time value.\"" }, { "docid": "305676", "title": "", "text": "\"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \"\"sell to open\"\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \"\"American\"\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \"\"European\"\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\"" }, { "docid": "279346", "title": "", "text": "COBRA provides you the option to continue your coverage as you had during your employment, after you leave your job. It is optional, you need to actively elect it. Once you elect, coverage starts from the day your employment coverage ends. So to answer your questions: Yes, it is legal. You elected this yourself, no-one forced you. You cannot get your money back. You did have coverage in June-July-August, since your COBRA election provided coverage from the date you left your job. As to cancellation, from the DOL FAQ: Q12: Can continuation coverage be terminated early for any reason? A group health plan may terminate coverage earlier than the end of the maximum period for any of the following reasons: If continuation coverage is terminated early, the plan must provide the qualified beneficiary with an early termination notice. The notice must be given as soon as practicable after the decision is made, and it must describe the date coverage will terminate, the reason for termination, and any rights the qualified beneficiary may have under the plan or applicable law to elect alternative group or individual coverage. If you decide to terminate your COBRA coverage early, you generally won't be able to get a Marketplace plan outside of the open enrollment period. For more information on alternatives to COBRA coverage, see question 4 above." }, { "docid": "313372", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a few other items that you should be aware of when getting options: The strike price is usually determined by an independent valuation of the common shares (called a 409a valuation). This should give you a sense on what the options are worth. Obviously you are hoping that the value becomes many multiple of that. There are two kinds in the US: Non-quals (NQO) and Incentive Stock Options (ISOs). The big difference is that when you exercise Non-quals, you have to pay the tax on the difference between the \"\"fair\"\" market value on the shares and what you paid for them (the strike price). This is important because if the company is private, you likely can not sell any shares until it is public. With ISOs, you don't pay any tax (except AMT tax) on the gain until you actually sell the shares. You should know what kind your getting. Some plans allow for early exercise, essentially allowing you to buy the shares early (and given back if you leave before they vest) which helps you establish capital gains treatment earlier as well as avoid AMT if you have ISOs. This is really complicated direction and you would want to talk to a tax professional. And always a good idea to know how many total shares outstanding in the Company. Very few people ask this question but it is helpful for you to understand the overall value of the options.\"" }, { "docid": "484362", "title": "", "text": "I'm sorry, but your math is wrong. You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions. Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down. Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today. Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10. But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost. Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period. The only difference is the option contract. The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance. It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement." }, { "docid": "514831", "title": "", "text": "\"You've described the process fairly well. It's tough to answer a question that ultimately is 'how is this fair?' It's fair in that it's part of the known risk. And for the fact that it applies to all, pretty equally. In general, this is not very common. (No, I don't have percents handy, I'm just suggesting from decades of trading it's probably occurring less than 10% of the time). Why? Because there's usually more value to the buyer in simply selling the option and using the proceeds to buy the stock. The option will have 2 components, its intrinsic value (\"\"in the money\"\") and the time premium. It takes the odd combination of low-to-no time premium, but desire of the buyer to own the stock that makes the exercise desirable.\"" }, { "docid": "380951", "title": "", "text": "You are asking 'what if', do you have some anticipated answers? Having volume smaller than open interest is the norm. As far as I can tell, having only one trading day and no previous open interest only affects someone trying to sell a contract they are holding. Meaning that if you only have one day to sell your contract then you need to offer it 'at market' or at the bid price (or even lower than the bid price). If you cannot sell your contract then you have to let it expire worthless or you have to exercise it. Those are your three options: let it expire, sell it (perhaps at a loss), and exercise it. Edit: be careful about holding an in-the-money option. Many brokers will automatically exercise an in-the-money contract if you hold it till expiration date." }, { "docid": "428399", "title": "", "text": "An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money." }, { "docid": "581672", "title": "", "text": "Here is the answer from my brokerage: Regular equity monthly options expire on the 3rd Friday of every month. The last time to trade them is by market close at 4 PM Eastern time. The weekly options will expire on the Friday of that week, also with a last trading time of 4 PM Eastern time. Options that expire in the money by .01 or more are automatically exercised. If you are long an option that is out of the money at expiration, it will expire worthless. If you are short an option, even if it expires out of the money, you are still at risk for possible assignment since the long option holder always has the right to exercise an option prior to expiration.*" }, { "docid": "277311", "title": "", "text": "Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%. Equities are convertible to cash presumably at the bid, so during a call exercise, the exercisor or exercisor's broker pays cash for the underlying at the exercise price, and any deficit is financed with debt, thus underlying can be sold to satisfy that debt or be sold for cash as one normally would. To preempt a forced exercise as a call holder, one could short the underlying, but this will be more expensive, and since probably no broker allows shorting against the box because of its intended use to circumvent capital gains taxes by fraud. The least expensive way to trade out of options positions is to close them themselves rather than take delivery." }, { "docid": "484778", "title": "", "text": "\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"" }, { "docid": "143655", "title": "", "text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"" }, { "docid": "4794", "title": "", "text": "Yes When exercising a stock option you will be buying the stock at the strike price so you will be putting up your money, if you lose that money you can declare it as a loss like any other transaction. So if the stock is worth $1 and you have 10 options with a strike at $0.50 you will spend $500 when you exercise your options. If you hold those shares and the company is then worth $0 you lost $500. I have not verified my answer so this is solely from my understanding of accounting and finance. Please verify with your accountant to be sure." }, { "docid": "444668", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have a little confusion over terminology that should be cleared up: You are calling this \"\"day-trading\"\" Day-trading is the term for performing multiple trading actions in a single day. While it appears that the COO has performed a buy and a sell on the same day, most people would consider this a 'single trade'. In reality, it seems that the COO had 'stock options' [a contract providing the option for the holder to buy stock at a specific price, at some point in the future], provided as part of his compensation package. He decided or was required to 'exercise' those options today. This means he bought the shares using his special 'option price'. It is extremely common for employees who exercise stock options, to sell all of the resulting stock immediately. This is very different from usual day-trading, which implies that he would have bought stock in the morning at a low price, and then sold it later at a high price. You are calling this 'insider trading'. That term specifically often implies some level of unethical behavior. In general, stock options offered to executive employees are strictly limited in how they can be exercised. For example, most stock option plans require employees to wait x number of years before they can exercise them. This gives the employee incentive to stay longer, and for a high-level executive with the ability to strongly impact company performance, it gives incentive to do well. Technically you are correct, this is likely considered an 'insider trade', but given that it seems to have been a stock option exercise, it does not necessarily imply that there was any special reasoning for why he did the trade today. It could simply be that today was the first day the stock option rules allowed him to exercise. As to your final question - no, these profits are the COO's, to do with as he likes.\"" }, { "docid": "576503", "title": "", "text": "\"An option without the vesting period and the price at which one can exercise the option is of not much value. If vesting is determined by board, then at any given point in time they can change the vesting period to say 3, 5, 10 years any number. The other aspect is at what price you are allowed to exercise the option, ie if the stock is of value 10, you may be given an option to buy this at 10, 20 or 100. This has to be stated upfront for you to know the real value. On listing if the value is say 80, then if you have the option to exercise at 10, or 20 you would make money, else at 100 you loose money and hence choose not to exercise the option. However your having stuck around the company for \"\"x\"\" years in anticipation of making money would go waste. Without a vesting period or the price to exercise the option, they are pretty much meaningless and would depend on the goodwill of the founders\"" }, { "docid": "538054", "title": "", "text": "It is possible to exercise an out of the money option contract. Reasons to do this: You want a large stake of voting shares at any price without moving the market and could not get enough options contracts at a near the money strike price, so you decided to go out of the money. Then exercised all the contracts and suddenly you have a large influential position in the stock and nobody saw it coming. This may be favorable if the paper loss is less than the loss of time value that would have been incurred if you chose contracts near the money at further expiration dates, in search of liquidity. Some convoluted tax reason." }, { "docid": "558542", "title": "", "text": "One reason this happens is due to dividends. If the dividend amount is greater than the time value left on a call, it can make sense to exercise early to collect the dividend. Deep in the money puts also may get exercised early. There's usually little premium on a deep in the money put and the spread on the bid-ask might erase what little premium there is. If you have stock worth $5,000 but own puts on them that will give you $50,000 upon exercise (and no spread to worry about), the interest you can gain on the $50k might be more than the little to no time value left on the position... even at several weeks to expiration." }, { "docid": "480337", "title": "", "text": "\"So, if an out-of-the-money option (all time value) has a price P (say $3.00), and there are N days... The extrinsic value isn't solely determined by time value as your quote suggests. It's also based on volatility and demand. Here is a quote from http://www.tradingmarkets.com/options/trading-lessons/the-mystery-of-option-extrinsic-value-767484.html distinguishing between extrinsic time value and extrinsic non-time value: The time value of an option is entirely predictable. Time value premium declines at an accelerating rate, with most time decay occurring in the last one to two months before expiration. This occurs on a predictable curve. Intrinsic value is also predictable and easily followed. It is worth one point for every point the option is in the money. For example, a call with a strike of 30 has three points of intrinsic value when the current value of the underlying stock is $33 per share; and a 40 put has two points of intrinsic value when the underlying stock is worth $38. The third type of premium, extrinsic value, increases or decreases when the underlying stock changes and when the distance between current value of stock and strike of the option get closer together. As a symptom of volatility, extrinsic value may be greater for highly volatile underlying stock, and lower for less volatile stocks. Extrinsic value is the only classification of option premium that is unpredictable. The SPYs you point out probably had a volatility component affecting value. This portion is a factor of expectations or uncertainty. So an event expected to conclude prior to expiration, but of unknown outcome can cause theta to be higher than p/n. For example, a drug company is being sued and the outcome of a trial will determine whether that company pays out millions or not. The extrinsic will be higher than p/n prior to the outcome of the trial then drops after. Of course, the most common situation where this happens is earnings. After the announcement, it's not unusual to see a dramatic drop in the extrinsic portion of options. This is why sometimes a new option trader gets angry when buying calls prior to earnings. When 'surprise' good earnings are announced as hoped, the rise is stock price is largely offset by a fall in extrinsic value giving call holders little or no gain! As for the reverse situation where theta is lower than p/n would expect? Well you can actually have negative theta meaning the extrinsic portion rises over time. (this statement is a little confusing because theta is usually described as negative, but since you describe it as a positive number, negative here means the opposite of what you'd expect). This is a quote from \"\"Option Volatility & Pricing\"\". Keep in mind that they use 'positive' theta to mean the time value increases up over time: Is it ever possible for an option to have a positive theta such that if nothing changes the option will be worth more tomorrow than it is today? When futures options are subject to stock-type settlement, as they currently are in the United States, the carrying cost on a deeply in-the-money option, either a call or a put, can, under some circumstances, be greater than the volatility component. If this happens, and the option is European (no early exercise permitted), it will have a theoretical value less than parity (less than intrinsic value). As expiration approaches, the value of the option will slowly rise to parity. Hence, the option will have a positive theta. Sheldon Natenberg. Option Volatility & Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques (Kindle Locations 1521-1525). Kindle Edition.\"" }, { "docid": "590453", "title": "", "text": "If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model." } ]

[ { "docid": "180571", "title": "", "text": "\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \"\"security\"\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \"\"which is best\"\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "52438", "title": "", "text": "\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"" }, { "docid": "132601", "title": "", "text": "\"There are broadly two kinds of pension: final salary / defined benefit, and money purchase. The text you quote above, where it talks about \"\"pension\"\" it is referring to a final salary / defined benefit scheme. In this type of scheme you earn a salary of £X during your working life, and you are then entitled to a proportion of £X (the proportion depends on how long you worked there) as a pension. These types of scheme are relatively rare now (outside the public sector) because the employer is liable for making enough investments into a pot to have enough money to pay everyone's pension entitlements, and when the investments do poorly the liability for the shortfall ends up on the employer's plate. You might have heard about the \"\"black hole in public sector pensions\"\" which is what this refers to - the investments that the government have made to pay public sector workers' pensions has not in fact been sufficient. The other type of scheme is a money purchase scheme. In this scheme, you and/or your employer make payments into an investment pot which is locked away until you retire. Once you retire, that pot is yours but there are restrictions on what you can do with it - you can use it to purchase an annuity (I will give you my £X,000 pension pot in return for you giving me an annual income of £Y, say) and you can take some of it as a lump sum. The onus is on you to make sure that you (and/or your employer) have contributed enough to make a large enough pot to give you the income you want to live on, and to make a sensible decision about what to do with the pot when you retire and what to use it as income. With either type of scheme, you can claim this pension after you reach retirement age, whether or not you are still working. In some schemes you are also permitted to claim the pension earlier than retirement age if you have stopped working - it will depend on the rules of the scheme. What counts as \"\"retirement age\"\" depends on how old you are now (and whether you are male or female) as the government has been pushing this age out as people have been living longer. In addition to both schemes, there is also a \"\"state pension\"\" which is a fixed, non-means-tested, weekly amount paid from government funds. Again you are entitled to receive this after you pass retirement age, whether or not you are still working.\"" }, { "docid": "546678", "title": "", "text": "While you have found a way to possibly gain $1275 in tax free income, you are also risking $1275 if you end up not using the money you contributed. You will have to find a way to have that much in medical expenses by your retirement date or you will leave some money in the Flexible Spending Account. There are risks you take with these accounts (use it or lose it) and risks the company takes (leave with a deficit in the account). Many times we get questions about how to spend all that the employee contributed before the last day of work, or the end of the plan year. You can play it more fair by selecting the maximum amount per check to be taken from your pay check, then waiting until the retirement date to decide how much you will withdraw from the FSA. Your last day of work is your last day to incur a medical expense but you are given a window to submit your claims that extends beyond your last day of work. I have not personally heard of an employer requiring a former employee to pay back the money when there is a deficit in their FSA. Remember people are fired, or laid off with little or no warning trapping their money in a FSA. The fact that you have the ability to plan for this event and considered your options, is a great position to be in." }, { "docid": "111603", "title": "", "text": "Does the 457(b) plan allow for the rollover of other retirement funds into it? And do you have very specific reasons for wanting to roll over your SEP-IRA into the 457(b) plan instead of into some other IRA plan with a different custodian? For example, if you already have a Traditional IRA, is there any reason why your SEP-IRA should not be rolled over into the Traditional IRA? With regard to the question about separate accounts, once upon a time, rolling over money from an employment retirement plan (e.g. 401k) into a Traditional IRA required establishing a separate account called a Rollover Traditional IRA so that the rolled-over money (and the earnings thereon) were not commingled with standard traditional IRA money resulting from personal contributions). This was so that the account owner had the option of rolling over the separately kept money into a new employer's retirement plan (if such a rollover was permitted by the new 401k plan). If one did not want to ever roll over money into a new employer plan, one had to write a letter to the custodian telling them that commingling was OK; you never wanted to put that money into another 401k plan. The law changed some time later and the concept of Rollover IRAs holding non-commingled funds has disappeared. With that as prologue, my answer to your question is that perhaps the law did not change with respect to 457(b) plans, and so the money that you want to rollover into the 457(b) plan needs to be kept separate and not commingled with your contributions via payroll deduction to the 457(b) plan (in case you want to ever roll over the SEP-IRA money into another SEP-IRA). Hence, separate accounts are needed: one to hold your SEP-IRA money and one to hold your contributions via payroll deductions." }, { "docid": "110114", "title": "", "text": "All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage." }, { "docid": "394549", "title": "", "text": "\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"" }, { "docid": "266629", "title": "", "text": "\"To some extent, I suppose, most people are okay with paying Some taxes. But, as they teach in Intro to Economics, \"\"Decisions are made on the margin\"\". Few are honestly expecting to get away with paying no taxes at all. They are instead concerned about how much they spend on taxes, and how effectively. The classic defense of taxes says \"\"Roads and national defense and education and fire safety are all important.\"\" This is not really the problem that people have with taxes. People have problems with gigantic ongoing infrastructure boondoggles that cost many times what they were projected to cost (a la Boston's Big Dig) while the city streets aren't properly paved. People don't have big problems with a city-run garbage service; they have problems with the garbagemen who get six-figure salaries plus a guaranteed union-protected job for life and a defined-benefit pension plan which they don't contribute a penny to (and likewise for their health plans). People don't have a big problem with paying for schools; they have a big problem with paying more than twice the national average for schools and still ending up with miserable schools (New Jersey). People have a problem when the government issues bonds, invests the money in the stock market for the public employee pension plan, projects a 10% annual return, contractually guarantees it to the employees, and then puts the taxpayers on the hook when the Dow ends up at 11,000 instead of ~25,000 (California). And people have a problem with the attitude that when they don't pay taxes they're basically stealing that money, or that tax cuts are morally equivalent to a handout, and the insinuation that they're terrible people for trying to keep some of their money from the government.\"" }, { "docid": "58103", "title": "", "text": "\"The \"\"Deferral\"\" for the 401k means that you're not collecting your pay immediately, but instead diverting it to a retirement account (Roth 401k in this case). This article defines deferral well: What is the difference between a regular 401(k) deferral (pre-tax) and a Roth 401(k) deferral? Under either a regular 401(k) deferral or a Roth 401(k) deferral, you make a deferral contribution by electing to set aside part of your pay (by either a certain percentage or a certain dollar amount). For a regular 401(k) deferral, the taxable wages on your W-2 are reduced by the deferral contribution; therefore, you pay less current income tax. However, you will eventually pay tax on these contributions and earnings when the plan distributes the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings to you. The result is that the tax on the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings is only postponed. A Roth 401(k) deferral is an after-tax contribution, which means you must pay current income tax on the deferral. Since you have already paid tax on the deferral, you won’t pay tax on it again when you receive a distribution of your Roth 401(k) deferral. In addition, if you satisfy cer tain distribution conditions, then you won’t have to pay tax on the earnings either. This means that the distribution of the Roth 401(k) earnings can be tax free not just tax postponed. Traditionally, this deferred compensation typically was directed to a 401k, but now that Roth 401k is another available option, deferred compensation can be directed there as well.\"" }, { "docid": "275581", "title": "", "text": "TL; DR version: What you propose to do might not save you taxes, and may well be illegal. Since you mention your wife, I assume that the Inherited IRA has been inherited from someone other than your spouse; your mother, maybe, who passed away in Fall 2015 as mentioned in your other question (cf. the comment by Ben Miller above)? If so, you must take (at least) the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from the Inherited IRA each year and pay taxes on the distribution. What the RMD is depends on how old the Owner of the IRA was when the Owner passed away, but in most cases, it works out to be the RMD for you, the Beneficiary, considered to be a Single Person (see Publication 590b, available on the IRS web site for details). So, Have you taken the (at least) the RMD amount for 2016 from this Inherited IRA? If not, you will owe a 50% penalty of the difference between the amount withdrawn and the RMD amount. No, it is not a typo; the penalty (it is called an excise tax) is indeed 50%. Assuming that the total amount that you have taken as a Distribution from the Inherited IRA during 2016 is the RMD for 2016 plus possibly some extra amount $X, then that amount is included in your taxable income for that year. You cannot rollover any part of the total amount distributed into your own IRA and thereby avoid taxation on the money. Note that it does not matter whether you will be rolling over the money into an existing IRA in your name or will be establishing a new rollover IRA account in your name with the money: the prohibition applies to both ways of handling the matter. If you wish, you can roll over up to $X (the amount over and above the RMD) into a new Inherited IRA account titled exactly the same as the existing Inherited IRA account with a different custodian. If you choose to do so, then the amount that you roll over into the new Inherited IRA account will not included in your taxable income for 2016. To my mind, there is no point to doing such a rollover unless you are unhappy with the current custodian of your Inherited IRA, but the option is included for completeness. Note that the RMD amount cannot be rolled over in this fashion; only the excess over the RMD. If you don't really need to spend the money distributed from your Inherited IRA for your household expenses (your opening statement that your income for 2016 is low might make this unlikely), and (i) you and/or your spouse received compensation (earned income such as wages, salary, self-employment income, commissions for sales, nontaxable combat pay for US Military Personnel, etc) in 2016, and (ii) you were not 70.5 years of age by December 2016, then you and your wife can make contributions to existing IRAs in your names or establish new IRAs in your names. The amount that can be contributed for each IRA is limited to the smaller of $5500 ($6500 for people over 50) and that person's compensation for 2016, but if a joint tax return is filed for 2016, then both can make contributions to their IRAs as long as the sum of the amounts contributed to the IRAs does not exceed the total compensation reported on the joint return. The deadline for making such IRA contributions is the due date for your 2016 Federal income tax return. Since your income for 2016 is less than $98K, you can deduct the entire IRA contribution even if you or your wife are covered by an employer plan such as a 401(k) plan. Thus, your taxable income will be reduced by the IRA contributions (up to a maximum of $11K (or $12 K or $13K depending on ages)) and this can offset the increase in taxable income due to the distribution from the Inherited IRA. Since money is fungible, isn't this last bullet point achieving the same result as rolling over the entire $9.6K (including the RMD) into an IRA in your name, the very thing that the first bullet point above says cannot be done? The answer is that it really isn't the same result and differs from what you wanted to do in several different ways. First, the $9.6K is being put into IRAs for two different people (you and your wife) and not just you alone. Should there, God forbid, be an end to the marriage, that part of your inheritance is gone. Second, you might not even be entitled to make contributions to IRAs (no compensation, or over 70.5 years old in 2016) which would make the whole thing moot. Third, the amount that can be contributed to an IRA is limited to $5500/$6500 for each person. While this does not affect the present case, if the distribution had been $15K instead of $9.6K, not all of that money could be contributed to IRAs for you and your wife. Finally, the contribution to a Traditional IRA might be non-deductible for income tax purposes because the Adjusted Gross Income is too high; once again, not an issue for you for 2016 but something to keep in mind for future years. In contrast, rollovers from one IRA into another IRA (both titled the same) can be in any amount, and they can be done at any time regardless of whether there is compensation for that year or not or what the Adjusted Gross Income is or whether there is coverage by a 401(k) plan. There are no tax consequences to rollovers unless the rollover is from a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in which case, the distribution is included in taxable income for that year. What is prohibited is taking the entire amount of the $9.6K distribution from an Inherited IRA and rolling it over into your existing IRA (or establishing a Rollover IRA in your name with that $9.6K); ditto for some money going into your IRA and some into your wife's IRA. I expect that any IRA custodian will likely refuse to allow you to carry out such a rollover transaction but will be glad to accept 2016 contributions (in amounts of up to $5500/$6500) from you into existing IRAs or open a new IRA for you. The custodian will not ask whether you have compensation for 2016 or not (but will check your age!); it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not contribute more than the compensation etc. Incidentally, subject to the $5500/6500 maximum limit, you can (if you choose to do so) contribute the entire amount of your compensation to an IRA, not just the take-home pay amount (which will be smaller than your compensation because of withholding for Social Security and Medicare tax, State and Federal income tax, etc)." }, { "docid": "104934", "title": "", "text": "Please note that if you are self employed, then the profit sharing limit for both the SEP and Solo 401(k) is 20% of compensation, not 25%. There is no need for a SEP-IRA in this case. In addition to the 401(k) at work, you have a solo-401(k) for your consulting business. You can contribute $18,000 on the employee side across the two 401(k) plans however you wish. You can also contribute profit sharing up to 20% of compensation in your solo 401(k) plan. However, the profit sharing limit aggregates across all plans for your consulting business. If you max that out in your solo 401(k), then you cannot contribute to the SEP IRA. In other words, the solo 401(k) dominates the SEP IRA in terms of contributions and shares a limit on the profit-sharing contribution. If you have a solo 401(k), there is never a reason to have a SEP for the same company. Example reference: Can I Contribute to a solo 401(k) and SEP for the same company?" }, { "docid": "596429", "title": "", "text": "I agree that to take the money from the defined benefit plan you are saying that you can get a better return than the plan. You are taking all the risk if you take the lump sum. But there are two more risks that you are taking by keeping the money in the plan even though you are decades from retirement. Funding risk: companies and state/city/county governments have underfunded their pension programs due to budget pressure. In some cases they have skipped payments when the market was good, because they felt they were ahead of their obligations. They also delayed or skipped contributions when they had a budget shortfall, and wanted to not end the government/company fiscal year in the red. The risk is that they can get so far behind that they change their promises to current and former employees. This was one of the issues with the city of Detroit this year. Bankruptcy: even though their are guarantees regarding pension benefits, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation does set a maximum benefit. If the company goes bankrupt or the plan is terminated you might not get all the money you were expecting. While the chances of taking a haircut generally impacts people who have a long career, because they are entitled to a large benefit, it can impact people who don't expect it." }, { "docid": "470173", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a great question! The IRS is not 100% clear on this. IRS publications do however very strongly suggest that assuming your wife has a plan providing family coverage, you can contribute up to your family maximum. If she does NOT have a family coverage plan then the answer is definitively no, you may only contribute the individual limit. Note if you have children covered by her plan then she is considered to have \"\"family coverage\"\" even if you are not covered by her plan (see here, question 12). From the 2012 IRS publication, bottom of Page 4. For 2012, if you have self-only HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $3,100. If you have family HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $6,250. This is presumably the referencing the definition which is introduced and discussed for married couples on Page 6: Rules for married people. If either spouse has family HDHP coverage, both spouses are treated as having family HDHP coverage. If each spouse has family coverage under a separate plan, the contribution limit for 2012 is $6,250. You must reduce the limit on contributions, before taking into account any additional contributions, by the amount contributed to both spouse's Archer MSAs. After that reduction, the contribution limit is split equally between the spouses unless you agree on a different division. Example. For 2012, Mr. Auburn and his wife are both eligible individuals. They each have family coverage under separate HDHPs. Mr. Auburn is 58 years old and Mrs. Auburn is 53. Mr. and Mrs. Auburn can split the family contribution limit ($6,250) equally or they can agree on a different division. If they split it equally, Mr. Auburn can contribute $4,125 to an HSA (one-half the maximum contribution for family coverage ($3,125) + $1,000 additional contribution) and Mrs. Auburn can contribute $3,125 to an HSA. The last example is nearly the exact situation you are in assuming your wife's plan is family coverage. The only assumption beyond what is explicitly written you need to make is that you are considered to have family coverage in the example as per the \"\"Rules for married people\"\" section, even though your plan only is a single-coverage plan. This conclusion seems to logically follow from information in the FAQs here (see Q32), as well as this document. Neither the above example nor any IRS documents referenced in this answer cover your situation completely.\"" }, { "docid": "599739", "title": "", "text": "\"I would say yes: it's worth building additional retirement savings on top of a defined benefit pension plan (plans that pay set annual income). Here are a couple of reasons: Don't put all your eggs in one basket. While OTPP is probably in good shape, things can and do happen to pension plans. While there is a provincial system in place to guarantee some of your pension income ($1000/mo) if your plan goes bust, your benefits are not 100% guaranteed. Defined benefit pension plans are designed to provide recurring annual income, like your paycheck when you are employed. You can't \"\"take more out\"\" from your defined benefit pension plan when an emergency comes up. Whereas, your RRSP (and eventually RRIF, in retirement) are accounts from which you can take out extra in any given year, if necessary. That being said, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) won't let you save as much in your RRSP as other people who don't have pension plans: Normally, individuals in Canada are entitled to save 18% of their earned income, up to a limit ($21000 in 2009) in an RRSP each year. However, to level the playing field, individuals who are in a pension plan get a \"\"Pension Adjustment\"\" (PA) number on their T4 which reduces their available RRSP contribution room. Otherwise, they'd be able to tax-shelter more income for retirement than others. So, I would suggest if you have the RRSP room, consider using it. I'd also suggest you look at a Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA), especially if you don't have much RRSP room due to the pension adjustment. If you're not sure whether to use an RRSP or a TFSA, consider both.\"" }, { "docid": "33463", "title": "", "text": "\"Rather than reading news stories, why not go straight to the HMRC source? https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-your-private-pension/lifetime-allowance Seems your lifetime allowance measurement differs based on whether your pension is defined contribution or defined benefit. The latter seems fairly simple at 20 times first year payout, though the HMRC usage of the word \"\"usually\"\" is disconcerting. The language for defined contribution implies they check multiple times for violation of the LFA, just like you've pointed out. Of note, they specifically list: Note that you can also file to \"\"protect\"\" a larger LFA that you might have previously had. This generally means not contributing any longer to your pension though. There is info on the page linked above.\"" }, { "docid": "271266", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\"" }, { "docid": "253373", "title": "", "text": "What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand)." }, { "docid": "239780", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;SS is not an investment. It is a Tax. Learn the difference. Thus you pay for it with the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA). It is not an investment, you do not have an account with your money, it has always been a pay as you go plan, just like medicare, funds for schools, and all the other programs. SS is collected like a tax, but if it is infact a tax, why can I opt out of it? Come on, you really aren't trying to win an arguement about SS by saying its a \"\"tax\"\" and not a \"\"investment\"\". That's seriously the weakest bullshit, who the fuck cares the symantics of how its \"\"collected\"\".. The arguement is still the same, with no USA no SS. It is, therefore, a ponzi by definition. &gt;The US government wrote the laws that specify exactly who can opt out. Most people cannot just opt out because they don't meet the criteria. Again you're wrong. Joining and quitting Obtaining a Social Security number for a child is voluntary.[26] Further, there is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program (although, under normal circumstances, FICA taxes must be collected anyway). Although the Social Security Act itself does not require a person to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work in the United States,[27] the Internal Revenue Code does generally require the use of the social security number by individuals for federal tax purposes: The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate], be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.[28] Importantly, most parents apply for Social Security numbers for their dependent children in order to[29] include them on their income tax returns as a dependent. Everyone filing a tax return, as taxpayer or spouse, must have a Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) since the IRS is unable to process returns or post payments for anyone without an SSN or TIN. The FICA taxes are imposed on all workers and self-employed persons. Employers are required[30] to report wages for covered employment to Social Security for processing Forms W-2 and W-3. There are some specific wages which are not a part of the Social Security program (discussed below). Internal Revenue Code provisions section 3101[31] imposes payroll taxes on individuals and employer matching taxes. Section 3102[32] mandates that employers deduct these payroll taxes from workers' wages before they are paid. Generally, the payroll tax is imposed on everyone in employment earning \"\"wages\"\" as defined in 3121[33] of the Internal Revenue Code.[34] and also taxes[35] net earnings from self-employment.[36] **Seriously, you need to learn how to use google asshole. Stop looking like an idiot and posting blatent lies.**\"" }, { "docid": "51086", "title": "", "text": "\"The primary tax-sheltered investing vehicles in Canada include: The RRSP. You can contribute up to 18% of your prior year's earned income, up to a limit ($24,930 in 2015, plus past unused contribution allowance) and receive an income tax deduction for your contributions. In an RRSP, investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. No tax is due until you begin withdrawals. When you withdraw funds, the withdrawn amount will be taxed at marginal income tax rates in effect at that time. The RRSP is similar to the U.S. \"\"traditional\"\" IRA, being an individual account with pre-tax contributions, tax-deferred growth, and ordinary tax rates applied to withdrawals. Yet, RRSPs have contribution limits higher than IRAs; higher, even, than U.S. 401(k) employee contribution limits. But, the RRSP is dissimilar to the IRA and 401(k) since an individual's annual contribution allowance isn't use-it-or-lose-it—unused allowance accumulates. The TFSA. Once you turn 18, you can put in up to $5,500 each year, irrespective of earned income. Like the RRSP, contribution room accumulates. If you were 18 in 2009 (when TFSAs were introduced) you'd be able to contribute $36,500 if you'd never contributed to one before. Unlike the RRSP, contributions to a TFSA are made on an after-tax basis and you pay no tax when you withdraw money. The post-tax nature of the TFSA and completely tax-free withdrawals makes them comparable to Roth-type accounts in the U.S.; i.e. while you won't get a tax deduction for contributing, you won't pay tax on earnings when withdrawn. Yet, unlike U.S. Roth-type accounts, you are not required to use the TFSA strictly for retirement savings—there is no penalty for pre-retirement withdrawal of TFSA funds. There are also employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pension plans. Generally, employees who participate in these kinds of plans have their annual RRSP contribution limits reduced. I won't comment on these kinds of plans other than to say they exist and if your employer has one, check it out—many employees lose out on free money by not participating. The under-appreciated RESP. Typically used for education savings. A lifetime $50,000 contribution limit per beneficiary, and you can put that all in at once if you're not concerned about maximizing grants (see below). No tax deduction for contributions, but investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. Original contributions can be withdrawn tax-free. Qualified educational withdrawals of earnings are taxed as regular income in the hands of the beneficiary. An RESP beneficiary is typically a child, and in a child's case the Canadian federal government provides matching grant money (called CESG) of 20% on the first $2500 contributed each year, up to age 18, to a lifetime maximum of $7200 per beneficiary. Grant money is subject to additional conditions for withdrawal. While RESPs are typically used to save for a child's future education, there's nothing stopping an adult from opening an RESP for himself. If you've never had one, you can deposit $50,000 of after-tax money to grow on a tax-deferred basis for up to 36 years ... as far as I understand. An adult RESP will not qualify for CESG. Moreover, if you use the RESP strictly as a tax shelter and don't make qualified educational withdrawals when the time comes, your original contributions still come out free of tax but you'll pay ordinary income tax plus 20% additional tax on the earnings portion. That's the \"\"catch\"\"*. *However, if at that time you have accumulated sufficient RRSP contribution room, you may move up to $50,000 of your RESP earnings into your RRSP without any tax consequences (i.e. also avoiding the 20% additional tax) at time of transfer. Perhaps there's something above you haven't considered. Still, be sure to do your own due diligence and to consult a qualified, experienced, and conflict-free financial advisor for advice particular to your own situation.\"" }, { "docid": "590232", "title": "", "text": "To determine how much you can contribute to a regular and roth IRA you have to calculate your compensation: What Is Compensation? Generally, compensation is what you earn from working. For a summary of what compensation does and does not include, see Table 1-1. Compensation includes all of the items discussed next (even if you have more than one type).Wages, salaries, etc. Wages, salaries, tips, professional fees, bonuses, and other amounts you receive for provid-ing personal services are compensation. The IRS treats as compensation any amount properly shown in box 1 (Wages, tips, other compensation) of Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, provided that amount is reduced by any amount properly shown in box 11 (Nonqualified plans). Scholarship and fellowship payments are compen-sation for IRA purposes only if shown in box 1 of Form W-2. It a also includes commissions, self-employment income, and alimony an non-taxable combat pay. For most people it is what i in box 1 of the W-2. For the example in the question. If the sum of Box 1's equals $3,200 that is the maximum you can contribute to all your IRAs (regular and Roth). The funds can come from anywhere. It is not related to your net check. The money can be from savings, gifts, parents, grandparents... The IRS doesn't care about the source of the funds, only that you don't over contribute. Of course the calculation is more complex if the person is married, and if they have access to a retirement account." } ]

[ { "docid": "209730", "title": "", "text": "It is comparing apples to oranges. From govt or institution point of view defined contribution is better than defined benefits as they don't have to carry obligations. Although defined benefit sounds good, one can't guarantee it will be enough when you retire compared to inflation. It often becomes political issue. Defined contribution puts you in charge." } ]

[ { "docid": "406561", "title": "", "text": "\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"" }, { "docid": "599739", "title": "", "text": "\"I would say yes: it's worth building additional retirement savings on top of a defined benefit pension plan (plans that pay set annual income). Here are a couple of reasons: Don't put all your eggs in one basket. While OTPP is probably in good shape, things can and do happen to pension plans. While there is a provincial system in place to guarantee some of your pension income ($1000/mo) if your plan goes bust, your benefits are not 100% guaranteed. Defined benefit pension plans are designed to provide recurring annual income, like your paycheck when you are employed. You can't \"\"take more out\"\" from your defined benefit pension plan when an emergency comes up. Whereas, your RRSP (and eventually RRIF, in retirement) are accounts from which you can take out extra in any given year, if necessary. That being said, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) won't let you save as much in your RRSP as other people who don't have pension plans: Normally, individuals in Canada are entitled to save 18% of their earned income, up to a limit ($21000 in 2009) in an RRSP each year. However, to level the playing field, individuals who are in a pension plan get a \"\"Pension Adjustment\"\" (PA) number on their T4 which reduces their available RRSP contribution room. Otherwise, they'd be able to tax-shelter more income for retirement than others. So, I would suggest if you have the RRSP room, consider using it. I'd also suggest you look at a Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA), especially if you don't have much RRSP room due to the pension adjustment. If you're not sure whether to use an RRSP or a TFSA, consider both.\"" }, { "docid": "548329", "title": "", "text": "\"So you've already considered relocation. Here are a few additional things to consider with respect to negotiating a signing bonus (if any): Would you be leaving a position where you are eligible for an upcoming bonus, profit-share, or other special incentive payout, such as a stock option or RSU vesting date? A signing bonus can help offset the opportunity cost of leaving a previous job when an incentive payout date is near. At the new company, would you be required to wait some pre-defined period to be eligible to participate in the pension or retirement savings plan with employer basic or matching contributions? If you were receiving ongoing employer contributions in your previous company's plan and would need to wait, say, six months before participating in the new company's plan, a signing bonus can offset lost employer contributions in the interim. Consider funding your own IRA in that time. Would you be required to give up something else of value to you that your previous employer was providing, such as an expensive laptop, that is not expected to otherwise be replaced by the new company? Whether they offer a signing bonus and how much you can expect to negotiate is based on a lot of factors and you'll need to \"\"play it by ear.\"\" Remember what bonus means: \"\"A payment or gift added to what is usual or expected, in particular.\"\" Remember also that a signing bonus is a one time thing. In general, it's more important to consider the overall ongoing compensation package – salary and incentive plans, vacation, retirement benefits, health benefits, etc. – and whether those meet your long-term needs.\"" }, { "docid": "504975", "title": "", "text": "\"It's not possible for them to be comingled. From the IRS FAQ: Does my employer need to establish a new account under its 401(k), 403(b) or governmental 457(b) plan to receive my designated Roth contributions? Yes, your employer must establish a new separate account for each participant making designated Roth contributions and must keep the designated Roth contributions completely separate from your previous and current traditional, pre-tax elective contributions. It doesn't have to be a separate \"\"account\"\" necessarily, but the amounts must be tracked separately as if they were in separate accounts: Does separate account refer to the actual funding vehicle or does it refer to separate accounting within the plan's trust? Under IRC Section 402A, the separate account requirement can be satisfied by any means by which an employer can separately and accurately track a participant’s designated Roth contributions, along with corresponding gains and losses.\"" }, { "docid": "227906", "title": "", "text": "When you withdraw from your RRSP, you lose that contribution room and you will never get it back. Let's say you have room to contribute a total of $50,000 to RRSPs. If you withdraw $5000 from one institution and deposit it in another, you will now have a total contribution room of $45,000. This will only matter to you if you hope to max out your RRSP contributions sometime in your life, of course, but almost everyone should be aiming for this. Otherwise, you are correct. Your extra income will be mitigated by your immediate recontribution to your RRSP. Note that there are two circumstances where withdrawing from your RRSP does not reduce your contribution limit. The home-buyers plan lets you withdraw up to $25,000 to buy a home. You have to repay this over no more than 15 years. The second is the Lifelong Learning Plan, which lets you withdraw up to $20,000 (up to $10,000 annually), to be repaid over a 10-year period. Any other withdrawals (or failure to repay under the HBP or LLP) will lower your RRSP contribution room. In summary, it's almost certainly worth paying the $125 fee unless you are certain you will not be maxing out your RRSP contributions in your lifetime." }, { "docid": "470173", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a great question! The IRS is not 100% clear on this. IRS publications do however very strongly suggest that assuming your wife has a plan providing family coverage, you can contribute up to your family maximum. If she does NOT have a family coverage plan then the answer is definitively no, you may only contribute the individual limit. Note if you have children covered by her plan then she is considered to have \"\"family coverage\"\" even if you are not covered by her plan (see here, question 12). From the 2012 IRS publication, bottom of Page 4. For 2012, if you have self-only HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $3,100. If you have family HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $6,250. This is presumably the referencing the definition which is introduced and discussed for married couples on Page 6: Rules for married people. If either spouse has family HDHP coverage, both spouses are treated as having family HDHP coverage. If each spouse has family coverage under a separate plan, the contribution limit for 2012 is $6,250. You must reduce the limit on contributions, before taking into account any additional contributions, by the amount contributed to both spouse's Archer MSAs. After that reduction, the contribution limit is split equally between the spouses unless you agree on a different division. Example. For 2012, Mr. Auburn and his wife are both eligible individuals. They each have family coverage under separate HDHPs. Mr. Auburn is 58 years old and Mrs. Auburn is 53. Mr. and Mrs. Auburn can split the family contribution limit ($6,250) equally or they can agree on a different division. If they split it equally, Mr. Auburn can contribute $4,125 to an HSA (one-half the maximum contribution for family coverage ($3,125) + $1,000 additional contribution) and Mrs. Auburn can contribute $3,125 to an HSA. The last example is nearly the exact situation you are in assuming your wife's plan is family coverage. The only assumption beyond what is explicitly written you need to make is that you are considered to have family coverage in the example as per the \"\"Rules for married people\"\" section, even though your plan only is a single-coverage plan. This conclusion seems to logically follow from information in the FAQs here (see Q32), as well as this document. Neither the above example nor any IRS documents referenced in this answer cover your situation completely.\"" }, { "docid": "34538", "title": "", "text": "\"Some details in case you are interested: Being a defined benefit kind of pension plan, the formula for your Social Security benefits isn't tied directly to FICA contributions, and I'm not aware of any calculator that performs an ROI based on FICA contributions. Rather, how much you'll get in retirement is based on your average indexed monthly earnings. Here's some information on the Social Security calculation from the Social Security Administration - Primary Insurance Amount (PIA): For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2013, or who dies in 2013 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of: (a) 90 percent of the first $791 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus (b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $791 and through $4,768, plus (c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,768. Here's an example. Of course, to calculate a benefit in the future, you'll need to calculate projected average indexed monthly earnings; more details here. You'll also need to make assumptions about what those bend points might be in the future. The average wage indexing values for calculating the AIME are available from the Social Security Administration's site, but future indexing values will also need to be projected based on an assumption about their inflation. You'll also need to project the Contribution and Benefit Base which limits the earnings used to calculate contributions and benefits. Also, the PIA calculation assumes benefits are taken at the normal retirement age. Calculating an early or late retirement factor is required to adjust benefits for another age. Then, whatever benefits you get will increase each year, because the benefit is increased based on annual changes in the cost of living. Performing the series of calculations by hand isn't my idea of fun, but implementing it as a spreadsheet (or a web page) and adding in some \"\"ROI based on FICA contributions\"\" calculations might be an interesting exercise if you are so inclined? For completeness sake, I'll mention that the SSA also provides source code for a Social Security Benefit Calculator.\"" }, { "docid": "17166", "title": "", "text": "According to the 401K information from the IRS' website, it seems that you could seemingly get away with a salary as low as $53,000. It's tough, and I'd suggest speaking with an Accounting professional to get the clear answers, because as Brick's answer suggests, the IRS isn't super clear about it. An excerpt from a separate page regarding 401K contributions: The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: There are separate, smaller limits for SIMPLE 401(k) plans. Example 1: Greg, 46, is employed by an employer with a 401(k) plan and he also works as an independent contractor for an unrelated business. Greg sets up a solo 401(k) plan for his independent contracting business. Greg contributes the maximum amount to his employer’s 401(k) plan for 2015, $18,000. Greg would also like to contribute the maximum amount to his solo 401(k) plan. He is not able to make further elective deferrals to his solo 401(k) plan because he has already contributed his personal maximum, $18,000. He has enough earned income from his business to contribute the overall maximum for the year, $53,000. Greg can make a nonelective contribution of $53,000 to his solo 401(k) plan. This limit is not reduced by the elective deferrals under his employer’s plan because the limit on annual additions applies to each plan separately. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits" }, { "docid": "289178", "title": "", "text": "As a personal advice, its best avoided to take a loan for a vacation. Having said that it would also depend on the amount of loan that one is planning to take and the duration for repaying the loan and the rate of interest. One has to also consider if you borrow; when you are paying the loan back, is that money comming out of something else that was budgeted. Say paying this loan means that you can't save enough for the downpayment for your house you plan to buy next year or will mean less contributions to retirement savings. If so then its definately advisable to forego the vacation travel. You can still take the holiday and enjoy at home doing something else that of meaning." }, { "docid": "478987", "title": "", "text": "From a federal tax point of view, withdrawals from 529 plans are treated as taxable unless they are used on qualified expenses: The part of a distribution representing the amount paid or contributed to a QTP does not have to be included in income. This is a return of the investment in the plan. The designated beneficiary generally does not have to include in income any earnings distributed from a QTP if the total distribution is less than or equal to adjusted qualified education expenses (defined under Figuring the Taxable Portion of a Distribution , later). [...] To determine if total distributions for the year are more or less than the amount of qualified education expenses, you must compare the total of all QTP distributions for the tax year to the adjusted qualified education expenses. You'll have to include them in your income and pay normal income tax on them, and also in most cases pay an extra 10% penalty: Generally, if you receive a taxable distribution, you also must pay a 10% additional tax on the amount included in income. You'd have to check on the situation from a state perspective but I'd imagine it's quite similar. The basic point is that non-qualified distributions are treated as earnings." }, { "docid": "161330", "title": "", "text": "No, it doesn't work like this. Your charitable contribution is limited to the FMV. In your scenario your charitable contribution is limited by the FMV, i.e.: you can only deduct the worth of the stocks. It would be to your advantage to sell the stocks and donate cash. Had your stock appreciated, you may be required to either deduct the appreciation amount from the donation deduction or pay capital gains tax (increasing your basis to the FMV), depending on the nature of your donation. In many cases - you may be able to deduct the whole value of the appreciated stock without paying capital gains. Read the link below for more details and exceptions. In this scenario, it is probably more beneficial to donate the stock (even if required to pay the capital gains tax), instead of selling and donating cash (which will always trigger the capital gains tax). Exceptions. However, in certain situations, you must reduce the fair market value by any amount that would have been long-term capital gain if you had sold the property for its fair market value. Generally, this means reducing the fair market value to the property's cost or other basis. You must do this if: The property (other than qualified appreciated stock) is contributed to certain private nonoperating foundations, You choose the 50% limit instead of the special 30% limit for capital gain property, discussed later, The contributed property is intellectual property (as defined earlier under Patents and Other Intellectual Property ), The contributed property is certain taxidermy property as explained earlier, or The contributed property is tangible personal property (defined earlier) that: Is put to an unrelated use (defined later) by the charity, or Has a claimed value of more than $5,000 and is sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of by the qualified organization during the year in which you made the contribution, and the qualified organization has not made the required certification of exempt use (such as on Form 8282, Donee Information Return, Part IV). See also Recapture if no exempt use , later. See more here." }, { "docid": "231720", "title": "", "text": "It is great that you came up with a plan to own a rental home, free and clear, and also move up in home. It is also really good of you to recognize that curtailing spending has a profound effect on your net worth, many people fail to acknowledge that factoid and prefer to instead blame things outside their control. Good work there. Here are some items of your plan that I have comments on. 11mo by aggressively curtailing elective spending How does your spouse feel about this? They have to be on board, but it is such a short time frame this is very doable. cashing out all corporate stock, This will probably trigger capital gains. You have to be prepared to pay the tax man, but this is a good source of cash for your plan. You also have to have an additional amount that will likely be due next April 15th. redirecting all contributions to my current non-matched R401(k) This is fine as well because of the short time frame. withdrawing the principal from a Roth IRA This I kind of hate. We are so limited in money that we can put into tax favored plans, that taking money out bothers me. Also it is that much more difficult to save in a ROTH because of the sting of taxes. I would not do this, but would favor instead to take a few extra months to make your plan happen. buy home #2 How are you going to have a down payment for home #2? Is your intention to pay off home and save a while, then purchase home #2? I would do anything to avoid PMI. Besides I would take some time to live in a paid for house. Overall I would grade your plan a B. If take a bit longer, and remove the withdrawing from the ROTH, it then becomes an A-. With a good explanation of how you come up with the down payment for house 2, you could easily move to an A+." }, { "docid": "458183", "title": "", "text": "Here would be the general steps to my mind for creating such a plan: Write out the final desired outcome. Is it $x in y years to fund your retirement? Is it $a in b years to put as a house down payment? This is the first step in defining how much money you want at what point in time. Consider what is your risk tolerance and how much time do you plan on spending in this plan. Is it rebalancing once a quarter and that's it or do you plan on doing monthly research and making tweaks all the time? This is slightly different from the first where one has to be mindful of how much volatility would one handle and what time commitment does one have for an investing strategy. Also, how much money would you be adding to the investments on what kind of time table would also be worth noting here. Construct the asset allocation based on the previous two steps along with historical returns averaged out to be a first draft of what you are buying in general. Is it US stocks? Is it a short-term bond fund? There are more than a few choices here that may make sense and it is worth considering based on the first couple of responses that determine what this will look like. Retirement in 40 years may be quite different than a house down payment in 2 years for example. Determine what brokerages or fund companies would offer such funds along with what types of accounts you'd want to have as in some countries there may be tax-advantaged accounts that may be useful to use here. This is where you're almost ready to start by doing the homework of figuring out how will things work. This may vary depending on one's jurisdiction. Get the applications from whatever institutions you'll be using and run with the desired asset allocation across various funds and accounts. Note that in the first few steps there were points of being aware of how much would you have, how aggressive are you investing and so forth. This is where you actually send in the money and get things rolling. Run with the plan and make tweaks as needed to achieve result, hopefully desired or better." }, { "docid": "360533", "title": "", "text": "This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser." }, { "docid": "539021", "title": "", "text": "\"Note that even if you are limited to the HSAs your employer provides, you can still set up your own HSA with whatever trustee you want and periodically transfer the funds from your employer sponsored HSA to your own HSA: according to IRS pub 969 \"\"Contributions to an HSA\"\" section: Rollovers A rollover contribution is not included in your income, is not deductible, and does not reduce your contribution limit. Archer MSAs and other HSAs. You can roll over amounts from Archer MSAs and other HSAs into an HSA. You do not have to be an eligible individual to make a rollover contribution from your existing HSA to a new HSA. Rollover contributions do not need to be in cash. Rollovers are not subject to the annual contribution limits. You must roll over the amount within 60 days after the date of receipt. You can make only one rollover contribution to an HSA during a 1-year period. Note. If you instruct the trustee of your HSA to transfer funds directly to the trustee of another HSA, the transfer is not considered a rollover. There is no limit on the number of these transfers. Do not include the amount transferred in income, deduct it as a contribution, or include it as a distribution on Form 8889. (italics mine) There may be minimums, opening, closing costs, etc. or whatever depending on each plan, but that's not limited by the IRS. So if you transfer the money yourself, you can only do it once per year, but there are no limits to when or how many times you can instruct the old HSA trustee to transfer funds directly to the new trustee. I also talked to the IRS today and they confirmed that you can have multiple HSA accounts as long as your total contributions don't exceed the yearly maximum (and from the quote above, transfers don't count as contributions).\"" }, { "docid": "33463", "title": "", "text": "\"Rather than reading news stories, why not go straight to the HMRC source? https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-your-private-pension/lifetime-allowance Seems your lifetime allowance measurement differs based on whether your pension is defined contribution or defined benefit. The latter seems fairly simple at 20 times first year payout, though the HMRC usage of the word \"\"usually\"\" is disconcerting. The language for defined contribution implies they check multiple times for violation of the LFA, just like you've pointed out. Of note, they specifically list: Note that you can also file to \"\"protect\"\" a larger LFA that you might have previously had. This generally means not contributing any longer to your pension though. There is info on the page linked above.\"" }, { "docid": "387011", "title": "", "text": "\"On thing the questioner should do is review the Summary Plan Description (SPD) for the 401(k) plan. This MAY have details on any plan imposed limits on salary deferrals. If the SPD does not have sufficient detail, the questioner should request a complete copy of current plan document and then review this with someone who knows how to read plan documents. The document for a 401(k) plan CAN specify a maximum percentage of compensation that a participant in the 401(k) plan can defer REGARDLESS of the maximum dollar deferral limit in Internal Revenue Code Section 402(g). For example, the document for a 401(k) plan can provide that participants can elect to defer any amount of their compensation (salary) BUT not to exceed ten percent (10%). Thus, someone whose salary is $50,000 per year will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $5,000. Someone making $150,000 will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $15,000. This is true regardless of the fact that the 2013 dollar limit on salary deferrals is $17,500. This is also true regardless of whether or not a participant may want to defer more than ten percent (10%) of compensation. This \"\"plan imposed\"\" limit on salary deferral contributions is permissible assuming it is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. This plan imposed limit is entirely separate from any other rules or restrictions on salary deferral amounts that might be as a result of things like the average deferral percentage test.\"" }, { "docid": "213591", "title": "", "text": "\"Standard federal candidate political donations are limited to $2700 per candidate per election. The primary and general elections are different elections for this purpose. Source: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml There are no tax implications to a campaign contribution. Even if you contribute to the campaign of someone to whom you have made gifts now or in the past, that does count. You are contributing to the campaign, not the person. Such money has to be used for campaign purposes. The candidate could be prosecuted (for something like embezzlement) for using the funds for something else. Example source: http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006985.php Congress itself ordered the IRS away from direct political contributions by enacting what is now Code Section 2501(c)(4) in 1975, which prohibits gift tax assessments on \"\"political organizations,\"\" defined by Section 527 as \"\"...a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function.\"\" There is no way to donate to a candidate's campaign in a tax deductible way. The only tax-deductible money in politics is money given to a charity that the charity then uses to fund their own campaigning activities like advertisements or get out the vote calls. Such spending might supplant some candidate spending, but it can't be given to the candidate's campaign to spend. In fact, such spending can't be coordinated with the campaign at all. Example source: http://blogs.hrblock.com/2013/03/04/how-to-capture-political-contributions-on-your-tax-return/ If you wrote a check for a presidential candidate or even a local mayoral candidate, you’re out of luck when it comes to deductions. Contributions given directly to campaigns and parties are absolutely non-deductible. Note that it spends a lot of time explaining how you can deduct contributions to independent charities that happen to do campaign work.\"" }, { "docid": "216849", "title": "", "text": "\"The IRS has a FAQ page about Hardship Distributions from a 401(k). The IRS defines a hardship in this case as \"\"an immediate and heavy financial need of the employee and the amount must be necessary to satisfy the financial need.\"\" Included in the list of examples is \"\"certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence.\"\" However, whether your former employer allows this particular reason is up to their plan documents. It sounds like, from what you described on the website, that your plan does include this reason as a possibility for you. Next, you need to decide if the projects you have in mind qualify as \"\"repair of damage.\"\" This uses the same rules as the deductible casualty rules found in IRS Publication 547, which defines a casualty this way: A casualty is the damage, destruction, or loss of property resulting from an identifiable event that is sudden, unexpected, or unusual. A sudden event is one that is swift, not gradual or progressive. An unexpected event is one that is ordinarily unanticipated and unintended. An unusual event is one that is not a day-to-day occurrence and that is not typical of the activity in which you were engaged. Examples are given in Pub 547. If the projects you have in mind are necessary due to an event (like a flood or a fire), it might be allowed. But most \"\"home improvement\"\" projects would not qualify for this. If you'd like a way to simplify your financial profile, an option for you, since you no longer work at this employer, is to roll over this 401(k) into a Rollover (traditional) IRA. This way, you won't have to deal with your former employer anymore. You could pick an IRA custodian that you already have another account with, if you like, and reduce the number of statements that you get. But the IRA will not let you take money out without penalty for home improvement projects, either.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "87349", "title": "", "text": "\"It means that the company earned 15 cents per share in the most recently reported quarter. Share price may or not be affected, depending on how buyers and sellers value the company. Just because profits \"\"jumped,\"\" does not mean the shares will follow suit. An increase in profits may have already been priced into the stock, or the market expected the increase in profit to be even higher. As the shareholder, you don't actually get any of these profits into your hands, unless the company pays out a portion of these profits as a dividend.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "21975", "title": "", "text": "\"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of \"\"shares\"\" of equity in the company. Usually, these \"\"shares\"\" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of \"\"controlling interests\"\". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For \"\"private\"\" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For \"\"public\"\" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about \"\"dilution\"\". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The \"\"privately-held\"\" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the \"\"controlling interests\"\" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, \"\"common\"\" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. \"\"Preferred stock\"\" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the \"\"common\"\" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to \"\"class\"\" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue \"\"superstock\"\" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a \"\"superstock\"\" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues \"\"superstock\"\", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available \"\"common stock\"\" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The \"\"ideal\"\" form of this is a \"\"stock split\"\"; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering.\"" }, { "docid": "208507", "title": "", "text": "$15 being how much it costs to drive a car about 10 miles, and does not account for a driver's time. Hilarious shit, from the biggest payday loan scam the planet has ever seen. Because Uber is nothing but a scam where you work your ass off, to steal money from your future self, and give 25% of it to Uber! But if you think 6 cents a mile is a decent wage for a cab driver (which is what you can make, if you are lucky), then by all means, please sign up!" }, { "docid": "110856", "title": "", "text": "No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]" }, { "docid": "71614", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;As a legal matter, shareholders who purchase shares of stock in a corporation own nothing more than that—shares of stock. Similarly, bondholders own only bonds, and executives with employment contracts own their contracts. None of these types of ownership give shareholders, bondholders or executives the right to control the firm. The right to control the firm’s assets and actions rests in the hands of its board of directors, and only when they act as a body and follow proper board procedures. All this says is \"\"decisions are made by the board.\"\" This is not news, and it doesn't mean that shareholders do not own the company. Shareholders elect the board, by the way. &gt;An important consequence of this governance structure is that shareholders not only have no legal right to control the firm, they also have no legal right to help themselves to the corporation’s assets. Well, that's wrong. &gt;In fact, the only time shareholders receive any funds directly from the corporation’s coffers is when they receive a dividend or the corporation repurchases their shares. Or, you know, in the case of bankruptcy. &gt;This only happens when the directors vote to declare a dividend or a corporate repurchase. The same directors who were appointed by shareholders. &gt;At law, a principal has a right to control her agent. But shareholders can’t exercise direct control over corporate directors. I suppose this is true in the sense that shareholders cannot practice slavery. But shareholders can, again, vote on issues relating to the governance of the company. &gt;It is thus wildly misleading to describe shareholders as the sole residual claimants in companies that aren’t actually in bankruptcy. This is only true if you're retarded and don't know what \"\"residual\"\" means. &gt;This idea is supported by modern options theory. In effect, bondholders own the right to access cash flow but have sold a call to shareholders, while shareholders own the right to access the cash flow but have sold a put to bondholders. Neither shareholders nor bondholders can claim an exclusive right to “own” the company’s cash flow, much less the company. This is a made up explanation that doesn't mean anything. The real options model of corporate assets is that corporate debt is a risk-free bond with a short put option and equity is a call option. There is no \"\"deal,\"\" in actuality or in spirit, between debt and equity owners. You can dismiss the article as \"\"shit.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "177093", "title": "", "text": "\"Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price \"\"may\"\" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore \"\"may\"\" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course.\"" }, { "docid": "122485", "title": "", "text": "Its hard to write much in those comment boxes, so I'll just make an answer, although its really not a formal answer. Regarding commissions, it costs me $5 per trade, so that's actually $10 per trade ($5 to buy, $5 to sell). An ETF like TNA ($58 per share currently) fluctuates $1 or $2 per day. IXC is $40 per share and fluctuates nearly 50 cents per day (a little less). So to make any decent money per trade would mean a share size of 50 shares TNA which means I need $2900 in cash (TNA is not marginable). If it goes up $1 and I sell, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. I would consider this to be the minimum share size for TNA. For IXC, 100 shares would cost me $4000 / 2 = $2000 since IXC is marginable. If IXC goes up 50 cents, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. IXC also pays a decent dividend. TNA does not. You'll notice the amount of cash needed to capture these gains is roughly the same. (Actually, to capture daily moves in IXC, you'll need a bit more than $2000 because it doesn't vary quite a full 50 cents each day). At first, I thought you were describing range trading or stock channeling, but those systems require stop losses when the range or channel is broken. You're now talking about holding forever until you get 1 or 2 points of profit. Therefore, I wouldn't trade stocks at all. Stocks could go to zero, ETFs will not. It seems to me you're looking for a way to generate small, consistent returns and you're not seeking to strike it rich in one trade. Therefore, buying something that pays a dividend would be a good idea if you plan to hold forever while waiting for your 1 or 2 points. In your system you're also going to have to define when to get back in the trade. If you buy IXC now at $40 and it goes to $41 and you sell, do you wait for it to come back to $40? What if it never does? Are you happy with having only made one trade for $40 profit in your lifetime? What if it goes up to $45 and then dips to $42, do you buy at $42? If so, what stops you from eventually buying at the tippy top? Or even worse, what stops you from feeling even more confident at the top and buying bigger lots? If it gets to $49, surely it will cover that last buck to $50, right? /sarc What if you bought IXC at $40 and it went down. Now what? Do you take up gardening as a hobby while waiting for IXC to come back? Do you buy more at lower prices and average down? Do you find other stocks to trade? If so, how long until you run out of money and you start getting margin calls? Then you'll be forced to sell at the bottom when you should be buying more. All these systems seem easy, but when you actually get in there and try to use them, you'll find they're not so easy. Anything that is obvious, won't work anymore. And even when you find something that is obvious and bet that it stops working, you'll be wrong then too. The thing is, if you think of it, many others just like you also think of it... therefore it can't work because everyone can't make money in stocks just like everyone at the poker table can't make money. If you can make 1% or 2% per day on your money, that's actually quite good and not too many people can do that. Or maybe its better to say, if you can make 2% per trade, and not take a 50% loss per 10 trades, you're doing quite well. If you make $40 per trade profit while working with $2-3k and you do that 50 times per year (50 trades is not a lot in a year), you've doubled your money for the year. Who does that on a consistent basis? To expect that kind of performance is just unrealistic. It much easier to earn $2k with $100k than it is to double $2k in a year. In stocks, money flows TO those who have it and FROM those who don't. You have to plan for all possibilities, form a system then stick to it, and not take on too much risk or expect big (unrealistic) rewards. Daytrading You make 4 roundtrips in 5 days, that broker labels you a pattern daytrader. Once you're labeled, its for life at that brokerage. If you switch to a new broker, the new broker doesn't know your dealings with the old broker, therefore you'll have to establish a new pattern with the new broker in order to be labeled. If the SEC were to ask, the broker would have to say 'yes' or 'no' concering if you established a pattern of daytrading at that brokerage. Suppose you make the 4 roundtrips and then you make a 5th that triggers the call. The broker will call you up and say you either need to deposit enough to bring your account to $25k or you need to never make another daytrade at that firm... ever! That's the only warning you'll ever get. If you're in violation again, they lock your account to closing positions until you send in funds to bring the balance up to $25k. All you need to do is have the money hit your account, you can take it right back out again. Once your account has $25k, you're allowed to trade again.... even if you remove $15k of it that same day. If you trigger the call again, you have to send the $15k back in, then take it back out. Having the label is not all bad... they give you 4x margin. So with $25k, you can buy $100k of marginable stock. I don't know... that could be a bad thing too. You could get a margin call at the end of the day for owning $100k of stock when you're only allowed to own $50k overnight. I believe that's a fed call and its a pretty big deal." }, { "docid": "320778", "title": "", "text": "Buy low, sell high - the problem, of course, finding a crystal ball that will tell you when the highs and lows are going to happen :-) You could, for instance, save your money in cash and wait for the occasional sharp drop, but then you've lost profits & dividends from having that cash under the mattress all those years you were waiting. About the closest I've ever gotten to market timing, and I think the closest anyone can get in real life, is that I cut personal spending to the bone from 2008 to 2011, and invested every spare cent. But such opportunities only come along a few times in a lifetime. The other thing is to avoid what a lot of people do, which you might call anti-timing. When the market is high, they jump on the bandwagon, then when it drops they panic-sell, and lose money." }, { "docid": "597346", "title": "", "text": "It may have some value! Investopedia has a well-written quick article on how stock holders may still get some portion of the liquidated assets. While there is generally little left for common shareholders if the price of those shares is tiny and some money does come back to shareholders there can still be significant profit to be made. As to why the trading volume is so high... there are many firms and hedge funds that specialize in calculating the value of and buying distressed debt and stock. They often compete with each other to by the stock/debt that common shareholders are trying to get rid of. In this particular case, there is a lot of popular interest, intellectual property at stake and pending lawsuits that probably boosts volume." }, { "docid": "498676", "title": "", "text": "\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\"" }, { "docid": "63296", "title": "", "text": "\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \"\"But wait,\"\" you say, \"\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\"\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \"\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\"\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\"" }, { "docid": "306149", "title": "", "text": "Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus." }, { "docid": "107857", "title": "", "text": "Theaters make pennies off the tickets if any money at all. Their profits come from the concession stand. If a theater priced their popcorn 50 cents less than a nearby competing theater the few if any customers that notice and seek those small savings would be far less than the losses due to charging less. They compete to get you there: providing better sound systems, seating, screens -- even taking a loss on tickets with special deals (like Tuesday bargains). Once inside profit is made by customers willing to pay the concession price premium, and sour patch kids for 15 cents more isn't going to be a deal breaker." }, { "docid": "86040", "title": "", "text": "\"Unrealistic assumption, but I'll play along. Ultimately, dividends would exist because some innovative shareholder of some company, at some time, would desire income from their investment and could propose the idea of sharing the profit. Like-minded investors also desiring income could vote for dividends to come into existence — or, rather, vote for a board of directors that supports enactment of the idea. (In your fictitious world, shareholders do still control the corporation, right?) In this world, though, dividends wouldn't be called \"\"dividends\"\", a terrible name that's too \"\"mathy\"\" for the inhabitants of that world. Rather, they would institute a quarterly or annual shareholder profit share. Governments would enact legislation to approve of—nay, encourage such an innovation because it becomes a new source of recurring income they can tax. Alternatively, even if the idea of a cash dividend didn't occur to anybody in that world, investors would realize the stock price is depressed and could propose and vote for the board to institute share buybacks. The company repurchasing some portion of shares periodically would provide income to shareholders participating in the buyback. If the buyback were oversubscribed, they could structure it fairly (pro-rata participation, etc.) Alternatively, shareholders would pressure the board (or fire them and vote in a new board) to put the company up for sale and find a larger buyer, who would purchase the shares for cash. This can't scale forever, though, so the pressure will increase for solutions like #1 and #2.\"" }, { "docid": "456470", "title": "", "text": "What is a dividend? Essentially, for every share of a dividend stock that you own, you are paid a portion of the company’s earnings. You get paid simply for owning the stock! For example, let’s say Company X pays an annualized dividend of 20 cents per share. Most companies pay dividends quarterly (four times a year), meaning at the end of every business quarter, the company will send a check for 1/4 of 20 cents (or 5 cents) for each share you own. This may not seem like a lot, but when you have built your portfolio up to thousands of shares, and use those dividends to buy more stock in the company, you can make a lot of money over the years. The key is to reinvest those dividends! Source: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-investing-101/what-are-dividend-stocks/ What is an ex dividend date Once the company sets the record date, the ex-dividend date is set based on stock exchange rules. The ex-dividend date is usually set for stocks two business days before the record date. If you purchase a stock on its ex-dividend date or after, you will not receive the next dividend payment. Instead, the seller gets the dividend. If you purchase before the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend. Source: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm That said, as long as you purchased the stock before 6/4/17 you are entitled to the next dividend. If not, you'll get the following one after that." }, { "docid": "496681", "title": "", "text": "There is certainly an obligation in some cases of a company to distribute profit, either as dividend or a stock buy back. Activist investors frequently push for one or the other when a company is doing well - sometimes to the detriment of future growth, in some eyes - and can even file shareholder lawsuits (saying the company is not doing its duty to its shareholders by simply holding onto cash). Apple famously held out from doing either for years under Steve Jobs, and only in the last few years started doing both - a large dividend and a share buy-back which increases the value of remaining shares (as EPS then goes up with fewer shares out there). Carl Icahn for example is one of those investors in Apple's case [and in many cases!] who put significant pressure, particularly when they were sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars. Ultimately, a (for-profit) corporation's board is tasked with maximizing its shareholder's wealth; as such, it can buy back shares, pay dividends, sell the company, liquidate the company, or expand the company, at its discretion, so long as it can justify to its shareholders that it is still attempting to maximize the value of their holdings. Companies in their growth phase often don't return any money and simply reinvest - but the long-term hope is to either return money in the form of dividends on profits, or the sale of the company." }, { "docid": "137235", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. This does not equate. Out of net income, it is only possible to either reinvest (retained earning) or payout (repurchase or dividend). You can't have a $20m gap there. &gt; Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? What makes them entitled to a separate, special dividend over the other shareholders? &gt; Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically. It kinda sounds like you're describing preferred equity, but doing it in a rather round-about way." }, { "docid": "30220", "title": "", "text": "\"fennec has a very good answer but i feel it provides too much information. So i'll just try to explain what that sentence says. Put option is the right to sell a stock. \"\"16 puts on Cisco at 71 cents\"\", means John comes to Jim and says, i'll give you 71 cent now, if you allow me to sell one share of Cisco to you at $16 at some point in the future ( on expiration date). NYT quote says 1000 puts that means 1000 contracts - he bought a right to sell 100,000 shares of Cisco on some day at $16/share. Call option - same idea: right to buy a stock.\"" }, { "docid": "304500", "title": "", "text": "Behind paywall, so copy/paste of article below: &gt; Brexit will push up costs for banks by as much as 4 per cent and their capital requirements will rise up to 30 per cent, according to the most detailed assessment yet of what Britain’s departure from the EU means for the sector. &gt; The findings by consultants Oliver Wyman will make grim reading for its bank clients, many of which are struggling with low profitability. They come a day after HSBC became the first lender to put a price tag on Brexit, saying the immediate disruption would cost it $200m-$300m. &gt; Stuart Gulliver, chief executive of HSBC, said $1bn of revenue in its global banking and markets unit would be put “at risk” by Brexit. But he said it planned protect this revenue by moving up to 1,000 of its 6,000 UK investment banking jobs to France. &gt; The pace of announcements about banks’ Brexit plans has picked up in recent weeks, partly because of pressure from the Bank of England for them to submit their plans for coping with the “worst-case scenario” of a hard Brexit, severing access to EU clients. The UK is set to leave the EU in March 2019. &gt; Such plans are expected to cause duplication of resources and capital for large banks in Europe, Oliver Wyman warned. It said this may cause some banks to abandon some European activities altogether and shift resources to the US and Asia. &gt; “At the moment what everyone is doing is planning to be able to continue doing what they already do after a hard Brexit,” said Matthew Austen, head of European corporate and institutional banking at Oliver Wyman. &gt; “Once you have done that, if you have a strong performance in the US or Asia, then that is when you start to look at the post-Brexit foundations and it will prompt you to look at what the right business mix is,” he said. &gt; The consultancy, which has access to detailed figures on almost every bank from the benchmarking work it does for the sector, estimated that 2 percentage points would be knocked off wholesale banks’ return on equity in Europe because of the disruption. &gt; Wholesale banks — which serve corporate and institutional clients — would need to find $30bn-$50bn extra capital to support their new European operations, an increase of 15 to 30 per cent, it estimated. The industry’s annual costs would rise by $1bn, or 2 to 4 per cent. &gt; “Any time you split a portfolio up — whether it be a credit portfolio or a trading book portfolio — you lose the benefits of diversification that allow you to reduce the capital you hold against it,” said Mr Austen. &gt; Many banks have decided they cannot afford to wait for the political uncertainty over the outcome of Brexit negotiations to clear before implementing their plans and have started finding office space and applying for licences with regulators. &gt; “Once everyone is back from this summer holidays, the annual planning process will really start in earnest and at that point people will start planning for next year’s costs and returns,” said Mr Austen. &gt; “As you move into the back end of this year and the start of next year you have to start making those decisions. You would want to have moved people by next summer if they are going to get their kids into school in September.” &gt; The consultancy stuck to the forecast it made last year that Brexit would drive 31,000-35,000 financial services jobs out of the UK, of which 12,000-17,000 would be in banking. In a worst-case scenario, in which euro clearing is shifted to the eurozone, banks could shift as many as 40,000 jobs out of the UK." }, { "docid": "14870", "title": "", "text": "If a company is public, and they record a 2016 profit of 100mil. Say there is shareholder A and shareholder B who are both wealthy and own 25% each of the company. Say the remaining 50% of shares are owned by a number of funds/small time investors. So 2016 profits are 100mil, lets say there is a dividend. Can the company still award a larger share of profits to the two big shareholders? I.e. say 50 mil of the profits go into dividend payments and another 20 mil as retained earnings to be reinvested into future projects, can the remaining 30 mil of profits be split and given to shareholders A and B?" } ]

[ { "docid": "70853", "title": "", "text": "It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected." } ]

[ { "docid": "454537", "title": "", "text": "\"It might be best to step back and look at the core information first. You're evaluating an LLC vs a Corporation (both corporate entities). Both have one or more members, and both are seen similarly (emphasis on SIMILAR here, they're not all the same) to the IRS. Specifically, LLC's can opt for a pass-through tax system, basically seen by the IRS the same way an S-Corp is. Put another way, you can be taxed as a corporate entity, or it's P/L statements can \"\"flow through\"\" to your personal taxes. When you opt for a flow-through, the business files and you get a separate schedule to tie into your taxes. You should also look at filing a business expense schedule (Schedule C) on your taxes to claim legitimate business expenses (good reference point here). While there are several differences (see this, and this, and this) between these entities, the best determination on which structure is best for you is usually if you have full time employ while you're running the business. S corps limit shares, shareholders and some deductions, but taxes are only paid by the shareholders. C corps have employees, no restrictions on types or number of stock, and no restrictions on the number of shareholders. However, this means you would become an employee of your business (you have to draw monies from somewhere) and would be subject to paying taxes on your income, both as an individual, and as a business (employment taxes such as Social Security, Medicare, etc). From the broad view of the IRS, in most cases an LLC and a Corp are the same type of entity (tax wise). In fact, most of the differences between LLCs and Corps occur in how Profits/losses are distributed between members (LLCs are arbitrary to a point, and Corps base this on shares). Back to your question IMHO, you should opt for an LLC. This allows you to work out a partnership with your co-worker, and allows you to disburse funds in a more flexible manner. From Wikipedia : A limited liability company with multiple members that elects to be taxed as partnership may specially allocate the members' distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit via the company operating agreement on a basis other than the ownership percentage of each member so long as the rules contained in Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) 1.704-1 are met. S corporations may not specially allocate profits, losses and other tax items under US tax law. Hope this helps, please do let me know if you have further questions. As always, this is not legal or tax advice, just what I've learned in setting several LLCs and Corporate structures up over the years. EDIT: As far as your formulas go, the tax rate will be based upon your personal income, for any pass through entity. This means that the same monies earned from and LLC or an S-corp, with the same expenses and the same pass-through options will be taxed the same. More reading: LLC and the law (Google Group)\"" }, { "docid": "480808", "title": "", "text": "Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount. Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY." }, { "docid": "411617", "title": "", "text": "The same applies if you were looking for a business to buy: would you pay more for a business that is doing well making increasing profits year after year, or for a business that is not doing so well and is losing money. A share in a company is basically a small part of a company which a shareholder can own. So would you rather own a part of a company that is increasing profits year after year or one that is continuously losing money? Someone would buy shares in a company in order to make a better return than they could make elsewhere. They can make a profit through two ways: first, a share of the company's profits through dividends, and second capital gains from the price of the shares going up. Why does the price of the shares go up over the long term when a company does well and increases profits? Because when a company increases profits they are making more and more money which increases the net worth of the company. More investors would prefer to buy shares in a company that makes increasing profits because this will increase the net worth of the company, and in turn will drive the share price higher over the long term. A company's increase in profits creates higher demand for the company's shares. Think about it, if interest rates are so low like they are now, where it is hard to get a return higher than inflation, why wouldn't investors then search for higher returns in good performing companies in the stock market? More investors' and traders' wanting some of the pie, creates higher demand for good performing stocks driving the share price higher. The demand for these companies is there primarily because the companies are increasing their profits and net worth, so over the long term the share price will increase in-line with the net worth. Over the short to medium term other factors can also affect the share price, sometime opposite to how the company is actually performing; however this is a whole different answer to a whole different question." }, { "docid": "304500", "title": "", "text": "Behind paywall, so copy/paste of article below: &gt; Brexit will push up costs for banks by as much as 4 per cent and their capital requirements will rise up to 30 per cent, according to the most detailed assessment yet of what Britain’s departure from the EU means for the sector. &gt; The findings by consultants Oliver Wyman will make grim reading for its bank clients, many of which are struggling with low profitability. They come a day after HSBC became the first lender to put a price tag on Brexit, saying the immediate disruption would cost it $200m-$300m. &gt; Stuart Gulliver, chief executive of HSBC, said $1bn of revenue in its global banking and markets unit would be put “at risk” by Brexit. But he said it planned protect this revenue by moving up to 1,000 of its 6,000 UK investment banking jobs to France. &gt; The pace of announcements about banks’ Brexit plans has picked up in recent weeks, partly because of pressure from the Bank of England for them to submit their plans for coping with the “worst-case scenario” of a hard Brexit, severing access to EU clients. The UK is set to leave the EU in March 2019. &gt; Such plans are expected to cause duplication of resources and capital for large banks in Europe, Oliver Wyman warned. It said this may cause some banks to abandon some European activities altogether and shift resources to the US and Asia. &gt; “At the moment what everyone is doing is planning to be able to continue doing what they already do after a hard Brexit,” said Matthew Austen, head of European corporate and institutional banking at Oliver Wyman. &gt; “Once you have done that, if you have a strong performance in the US or Asia, then that is when you start to look at the post-Brexit foundations and it will prompt you to look at what the right business mix is,” he said. &gt; The consultancy, which has access to detailed figures on almost every bank from the benchmarking work it does for the sector, estimated that 2 percentage points would be knocked off wholesale banks’ return on equity in Europe because of the disruption. &gt; Wholesale banks — which serve corporate and institutional clients — would need to find $30bn-$50bn extra capital to support their new European operations, an increase of 15 to 30 per cent, it estimated. The industry’s annual costs would rise by $1bn, or 2 to 4 per cent. &gt; “Any time you split a portfolio up — whether it be a credit portfolio or a trading book portfolio — you lose the benefits of diversification that allow you to reduce the capital you hold against it,” said Mr Austen. &gt; Many banks have decided they cannot afford to wait for the political uncertainty over the outcome of Brexit negotiations to clear before implementing their plans and have started finding office space and applying for licences with regulators. &gt; “Once everyone is back from this summer holidays, the annual planning process will really start in earnest and at that point people will start planning for next year’s costs and returns,” said Mr Austen. &gt; “As you move into the back end of this year and the start of next year you have to start making those decisions. You would want to have moved people by next summer if they are going to get their kids into school in September.” &gt; The consultancy stuck to the forecast it made last year that Brexit would drive 31,000-35,000 financial services jobs out of the UK, of which 12,000-17,000 would be in banking. In a worst-case scenario, in which euro clearing is shifted to the eurozone, banks could shift as many as 40,000 jobs out of the UK." }, { "docid": "150514", "title": "", "text": "\"You are missing the fact that the company can buy back its own shares. For simplicity, imagine the case that you own ALL of the shares of XYZ corporation. XYZ is very profitable, and it makes $1M per year. There are two ways to return $1M to you, the shareholder: 1) The company could buy back some fraction of your shares for $1M, or 2) The company could pay you a $1M dividend. After (1) you'd own ALL of the shares and have $1M. After (2) you'd own ALL of the shares and have $1M. After (1) the total number of shares would be fewer, but saying you owned less of XYZ would be like complaining that you are shorter when your height is measured in inches than in centimeters. So indeed, a buyback is an alternative to a dividend. Furthermore, buybacks have a number of tax advantages over dividends to taxable shareholders (see my answer in Can I get a dividend \"\"free lunch\"\" by buying a stock just before the ex-dividend date and selling it immediately after?). That said, it is important to recognize the shareholders who are less savvy about knowing when to accept the buyback (by correctly valuing the company) can get burned at the profit of the savvy shareholders. A strategy to avoid being burned if you aren't price savvy is simply to sell a fraction in order to get your pro rata share of the buyback, in many respects simulating a dividend but still reaping some (but not all) of the tax advantages of a buyback.\"" }, { "docid": "380107", "title": "", "text": "It's not just the executives. Many of these companies are franchises and are also public, so they have shareholders. When corporate, franchisees and shareholders all compete to make the most money, things turn to shit. Look at McDonald's. The food is total garbage, some of the worst in the fast food business. They aren't particularly good to their employees, either. That's because you have corporate, franchisees and shareholders squabbling over every last cent. Now look at In-N-Out. It is a privately held company and the food costs almost the same as McDonald's. Except In-N-Out has good food and they are pretty good to their employees. That's because In-N-Out doesn't have as many greedy, grasping hands as McDonald's. These shitty fast food and fast casual places are doomed. You can't have that many people demanding a piece of the profits. That turns the food to complete shit and employees are underpaid and stop caring." }, { "docid": "427859", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"" }, { "docid": "445353", "title": "", "text": "Your question has already been answered, you divide the amount of shares you own * 100% by the total amount of shares. However, I feel it is somewhat misleading to talk about owning a percentage of the company by owning shares. Strictly speaking, shares do not entitle you to a part of the company but instead give you a proportional amount of votes at shareholder meetings (assuming no funky share classes). What this means is that someone who owns 30% of a company's shares can't just grab 30% of the company's assets (factories, offices and whatever) and say that they are entitled to own this. What they actually own is 30% of the voting rights in this company, this means that they control 30% of all available votes when the company calls a vote on corporate actions, choosing a new director etc. which is how shareholders exert their influence on a company." }, { "docid": "98130", "title": "", "text": "\"They are not selling stocks. They are selling OJ futures contracts. Selling a futures contract at 142 gives the buyer the right to buy a fixed number of pounds of orange juice concentrate (\"\"OJ\"\") on a future date at 142 cents per pound. The seller has an obligation to suppy that fixed number of pounds of OJ to the buyer on the future date for 142 cents per pound. When the seller turns around and buys future contracts at 29, the seller gets the right to buy OJ on a future date at 29. This \"\"zeros his position\"\" -- meaning he's guaranteed himself the ability to deliver the pounds of OJ he was obligated to supply when he sold futures contracts at 142. And since he'll only have to pay 29 cents per pound, and he'll be selling the OJ for 142 per pound, he'll walk away with 113 cents of profit for every pound sold. You can read a blow-by-blow account of what Winthorpe and Valentine did at the end of \"\"Trading Places\"\" here and here. Note that what they did would not be legal today under the \"\"Eddie Murphy rule\"\", which prohibits trades based on illicitly obtained government information.\"" }, { "docid": "498676", "title": "", "text": "\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\"" }, { "docid": "269782", "title": "", "text": "\"Another way to look at this is that pure insider trading is an activity with the aim to use secret information to make personal profit or let others make personal profit at the expense of the company shareholders or investors. In buybacks, it is not company managers to get personal gain in this would-be \"\"insider trading\"\". The end-winners in this case are the shareholders. So there is nothing inherently bad in buying back stock. Moreover, it is a general practice to buy shares back (as opposed to paying dividends) when the company sees its shares being undervalued (of course, provided that it has the cash/borrowing ability to implement this), since it creates shareholders value, thereby maximising shareholder wealth, which is one of the primary tasks of the company managers.\"" }, { "docid": "137235", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. This does not equate. Out of net income, it is only possible to either reinvest (retained earning) or payout (repurchase or dividend). You can't have a $20m gap there. &gt; Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? What makes them entitled to a separate, special dividend over the other shareholders? &gt; Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically. It kinda sounds like you're describing preferred equity, but doing it in a rather round-about way." }, { "docid": "567552", "title": "", "text": "Typically, no. Unless you have a detailed agreement spelling out the apportioning of costs, all operating expenses are deducted from gross income first, with the division of the proceeds coming out of net profit, in accordance with the type and % of shares you own, and per the terms of the shareholders agreement. This is a simplified answer, and does not address other methods of extraction, such as wages paid, loans to shareholders, interest paid on loans from shareholders, etc.." }, { "docid": "14870", "title": "", "text": "If a company is public, and they record a 2016 profit of 100mil. Say there is shareholder A and shareholder B who are both wealthy and own 25% each of the company. Say the remaining 50% of shares are owned by a number of funds/small time investors. So 2016 profits are 100mil, lets say there is a dividend. Can the company still award a larger share of profits to the two big shareholders? I.e. say 50 mil of the profits go into dividend payments and another 20 mil as retained earnings to be reinvested into future projects, can the remaining 30 mil of profits be split and given to shareholders A and B?" }, { "docid": "344118", "title": "", "text": "\"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart. But let's take it further. Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves. These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability. Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream. They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price. Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs. Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates. A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the \"\"Bobs\"\". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying \"\"book value\"\" per share.\"" }, { "docid": "38863", "title": "", "text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder." }, { "docid": "110856", "title": "", "text": "No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]" }, { "docid": "169561", "title": "", "text": "The price gaps up because the offer is for a price above the current price. Therefore people want to buy now before the price jumps to the offer level. Of course it does depend on the tone of the announcement, which party is making the announcement, and are they announcing an offer or a deal. If the price is $10, and the offer is for $12; then the price may quickly jump. The early buyers will make the most quick money. They hope that the deal is done quickly, or if not the final price ends up higher. There are risks. The company could reject the offer. The due diligence could expose a problem. The regulators could reject the deal based on anti-trust issues. The deal could take many months to complete. Or the final deal could be for shares in the new company. The risks are one reason people sell after the deal/offer is announced. In other cases the seller finally is seeing a profit, or a smaller loss and wants out while they can." }, { "docid": "575554", "title": "", "text": "Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company. Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future). From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off. That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend). And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important. A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners. But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value." } ]

[ { "docid": "41912", "title": "", "text": "\"What does it mean in terms of share price? Should the share price increase by 15 cents? No, but you're on the right track. In theory, the price of a share reflects it's \"\"share\"\" of time discounted future earnings. To put it concretely, imagine a company consistently earning 15 cents a share every year and paying it all out as dividends. If you only paid 25 cents for it, you could earn five cents a share by just holding it for two years. If you imagine that stocks are priced assuming a holding period of 20 years or so, so we'd expect the stock to cost less than 3 dollars. More accurately, the share price reflects expected future earnings. If everyone is assuming this company is growing earnings every quarter, an announcement will only confirm information people have already been trading based on. So if this 15 cents announcement is a surprise, then we'd expect the stock price to rise as a function of both the \"\"surprise\"\" in earnings, and how long we expect them to stay at this new profitability level before competition claws their earnings away. Concretely, if 5 cents a share of that announcement were \"\"earnings surprise,\"\" you'd expect it to rise somewhere around a dollar.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "306688", "title": "", "text": "Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year." }, { "docid": "193485", "title": "", "text": "\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"" }, { "docid": "138178", "title": "", "text": "That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares. An IPO in explain like I'm five: A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for ***at least*** 30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back. *** So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it. Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't." }, { "docid": "368938", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"" }, { "docid": "458345", "title": "", "text": "Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck!" }, { "docid": "174315", "title": "", "text": "It's not really fair for him to say share buybacks are 4% of GDP, because share buybacks don't directly contribute to GDP. Presumably, if a company has excess cash than what can profitably be reinvested into the business, then it should return that cash to the shareholders (buybacks). Then, it is up to the shareholders to decide how to reallocate that capital. Theoretically, shareholders will allocate that capital into profitable ventures. The assumption being, distributing capital to profitable ventures is more efficient than distributing capital to non-profitable ventures. And the efficient distribution of capital should increase GDP in the long run. If you believe that sort of thing. Personally, Id rather that every employee was paid a respectable wage for their labor, not the bare minimum that they'll accept to avoid starvation. But that's another issue all together, so nevermind." }, { "docid": "421371", "title": "", "text": "\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \"\"the market\"\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \"\"earnings per share\"\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \"\"price-earnings ratio\"\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \"\"yield\"\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \"\"book value\"\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\"" }, { "docid": "275392", "title": "", "text": "Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each. The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000. Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling. When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is. When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital. In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders." }, { "docid": "517323", "title": "", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares." }, { "docid": "293048", "title": "", "text": "\"In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as \"\"dividends\"\". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the \"\"dividend\"\") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out \"\"dividends\"\". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do \"\"dividends\"\" in this or some other convoluted way.\"" }, { "docid": "11032", "title": "", "text": "\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"" }, { "docid": "386846", "title": "", "text": "I'm not a Millennial, either. I was born right in the middle of Gen X. I don't hate Applebee's, but I don't eat there, either. There are a number of small mom and pop restuarants in town. The cost of eating at those is roughly *half* of a meal at Applebee's, and the food is usually better. Further, I recently bought a house and have upgraded the kitchen, so I will be cooking for myself much more often. Homemade meals are about 10%-25% the cost of Applebee's. Quality is much higher, too. There are two problems with Applebee's. One, too many grasping hands. IIRC, Applebee's is a franchise. That means the franchisee, corporate and shareholders are all squabbling over their share of the profits. That leads to cuts in product quality and underpaying employees. That's a recipe for disaster. Yes, I believe in profit, but the profit should be going to only *one* entity. Otherwise, you start crapping on product and employees, which suppress profits. The other problem is complexity. How many items are on the Applebee's menu? Probaby 80-100. I haven't counted. That's too many. They need to get it down to 15-20 items and go all out to make those the best possible. If they had a more limited menu with higher quality items, the employees were better paid, and the prices were lower because only one party collected profits, they'd be doing well." }, { "docid": "74560", "title": "", "text": "How are shareholders sure to receive a fair percentage of each company? At the time the split occurs, each investor owns the same proportion of each new company that they owned in the first. What the investor does with it after that (selling one, for example) is irrelevant from a fairness perspective. Suppose company A splits into companies B and C. You own enough stock to have 1% of A. It splits. Now you have a bunch of shares of B and C. How much? Well, you have 1% of B and 1% of C. What if all the profitable projects are in B? Then shares of B will be worth more than those of C. But it should be the case that the value of your shares of B plus the value of your shares of C are equal to the original value of your shares of A. Completely fair. In fact, if the split was economically justified, then B + C > A. And the gains are realized proportionally by all equityholders. Remember, when a stock splits, every share splits so that everyone owns both companies in the same proportion as everyone else. Executives don't determine what the prices of the resulting companies are...that is determined by the market. A fair market will value the child companies such that together they are worth what the original was." }, { "docid": "96008", "title": "", "text": "You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job. The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it. They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors. With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way." }, { "docid": "151132", "title": "", "text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"" }, { "docid": "122485", "title": "", "text": "Its hard to write much in those comment boxes, so I'll just make an answer, although its really not a formal answer. Regarding commissions, it costs me $5 per trade, so that's actually $10 per trade ($5 to buy, $5 to sell). An ETF like TNA ($58 per share currently) fluctuates $1 or $2 per day. IXC is $40 per share and fluctuates nearly 50 cents per day (a little less). So to make any decent money per trade would mean a share size of 50 shares TNA which means I need $2900 in cash (TNA is not marginable). If it goes up $1 and I sell, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. I would consider this to be the minimum share size for TNA. For IXC, 100 shares would cost me $4000 / 2 = $2000 since IXC is marginable. If IXC goes up 50 cents, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. IXC also pays a decent dividend. TNA does not. You'll notice the amount of cash needed to capture these gains is roughly the same. (Actually, to capture daily moves in IXC, you'll need a bit more than $2000 because it doesn't vary quite a full 50 cents each day). At first, I thought you were describing range trading or stock channeling, but those systems require stop losses when the range or channel is broken. You're now talking about holding forever until you get 1 or 2 points of profit. Therefore, I wouldn't trade stocks at all. Stocks could go to zero, ETFs will not. It seems to me you're looking for a way to generate small, consistent returns and you're not seeking to strike it rich in one trade. Therefore, buying something that pays a dividend would be a good idea if you plan to hold forever while waiting for your 1 or 2 points. In your system you're also going to have to define when to get back in the trade. If you buy IXC now at $40 and it goes to $41 and you sell, do you wait for it to come back to $40? What if it never does? Are you happy with having only made one trade for $40 profit in your lifetime? What if it goes up to $45 and then dips to $42, do you buy at $42? If so, what stops you from eventually buying at the tippy top? Or even worse, what stops you from feeling even more confident at the top and buying bigger lots? If it gets to $49, surely it will cover that last buck to $50, right? /sarc What if you bought IXC at $40 and it went down. Now what? Do you take up gardening as a hobby while waiting for IXC to come back? Do you buy more at lower prices and average down? Do you find other stocks to trade? If so, how long until you run out of money and you start getting margin calls? Then you'll be forced to sell at the bottom when you should be buying more. All these systems seem easy, but when you actually get in there and try to use them, you'll find they're not so easy. Anything that is obvious, won't work anymore. And even when you find something that is obvious and bet that it stops working, you'll be wrong then too. The thing is, if you think of it, many others just like you also think of it... therefore it can't work because everyone can't make money in stocks just like everyone at the poker table can't make money. If you can make 1% or 2% per day on your money, that's actually quite good and not too many people can do that. Or maybe its better to say, if you can make 2% per trade, and not take a 50% loss per 10 trades, you're doing quite well. If you make $40 per trade profit while working with $2-3k and you do that 50 times per year (50 trades is not a lot in a year), you've doubled your money for the year. Who does that on a consistent basis? To expect that kind of performance is just unrealistic. It much easier to earn $2k with $100k than it is to double $2k in a year. In stocks, money flows TO those who have it and FROM those who don't. You have to plan for all possibilities, form a system then stick to it, and not take on too much risk or expect big (unrealistic) rewards. Daytrading You make 4 roundtrips in 5 days, that broker labels you a pattern daytrader. Once you're labeled, its for life at that brokerage. If you switch to a new broker, the new broker doesn't know your dealings with the old broker, therefore you'll have to establish a new pattern with the new broker in order to be labeled. If the SEC were to ask, the broker would have to say 'yes' or 'no' concering if you established a pattern of daytrading at that brokerage. Suppose you make the 4 roundtrips and then you make a 5th that triggers the call. The broker will call you up and say you either need to deposit enough to bring your account to $25k or you need to never make another daytrade at that firm... ever! That's the only warning you'll ever get. If you're in violation again, they lock your account to closing positions until you send in funds to bring the balance up to $25k. All you need to do is have the money hit your account, you can take it right back out again. Once your account has $25k, you're allowed to trade again.... even if you remove $15k of it that same day. If you trigger the call again, you have to send the $15k back in, then take it back out. Having the label is not all bad... they give you 4x margin. So with $25k, you can buy $100k of marginable stock. I don't know... that could be a bad thing too. You could get a margin call at the end of the day for owning $100k of stock when you're only allowed to own $50k overnight. I believe that's a fed call and its a pretty big deal." }, { "docid": "440458", "title": "", "text": "1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110? Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110. For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price. That is a different scenario, and gets into the actual nature of options, where investors will arrange multiple simultaneous transactions in order to limit risk and retain reward within a certain band of future prices. As pointed out by @Nick R, this fee would be very significant, for a call option which had a price set below the current price. Typically, options are sold 'out of the money' initially, which means that at the current share price (at the time the option is purchased), executing the option would lose you money. If you purchase an 'in the money' option, the transaction cost initially would by higher than any apparent gain you might have by immediately executing the option. For a more realistic Options example, assume that it costs $15 initially to buy either the Call option, or the Put option. In that case, after buying both options as listed in your scenarios you would earn a profit if the share price exceeded $120 [The $120 sale price less the $90 call option = $30, which is your total fee initially], or dropped below $80 [The $110 Put price less the $80 purchase price = $30]. This type of transaction implies that you expect the price to either swing up, or swing down, but not fall within the band between $80-$120. Perhaps you might do this if there was an upcoming election or other known event, which might be a failure or success, and you think the market has not properly accounted for either scenario in advance. I will leave further discussion on that topic [arranging options of different prices to create specific bands of profitability / loss] to another answer (or other questions which likely already exist on this site, or in fact, other resources), because it gets more complicated after that point, and is outside the root of your question." }, { "docid": "200928", "title": "", "text": "Ignoring taxes, a share repurchase has exactly the same effect on the company and the shareholders' wealth as a cash dividend. In either case, the company is disbursing cash to its shareholders; in the former, in exchange for shares which shareholders happen to be selling on the market at the time; in the latter, equally to all shareholders. For those shareholders who do not happen to be selling their shares, a share repurchase by a company is equivalent to a shareholder's reinvestment of a cash dividend in additional shares of the same company. The only difference is the total number of shares left outstanding. Your shares after a share buyback represent ownership of a greater fraction of the company, since in effect the company is buying out other shareholders on your behalf. Theoretically, a share buyback leaves the price of the stock unchanged, whereas a cash dividend tends to reduce the price of the stock by exactly the amount of the dividend, (notwithstanding underlying earnings.) This is because a share buyback concentrates your ownership in the company, but at the same time, the company as a whole is devalued by the exact amount of cash disbursed to buy back shares. Taxwise, a share buyback generally allows you to treat your share of the company's profits as capital gains---and quite possibly defer taxes on it as long as you own the stock. You usually have to pay taxes on dividends at the time they are paid. However, dividends are sometimes seen as instilling discipline in management, because it's a very public and obvious sign of distress for a company to cut its dividend, whereas a share repurchase plan can often be quietly withdrawn without drawing that much attention. A third alternative to a dividend or a share repurchase is for the company to find profitable projects to reinvest its earnings in, and attempt to grow the company as a whole (in the hopes of even greater earnings in the future) rather than distribute current earnings back to shareholders. (A company may alse use its earnings to pay down or repurchase debt, as well.) As to your second question, the SEC has certain rules that regulate the timing and price of share repurchases on the open market." }, { "docid": "186354", "title": "", "text": "It's a dilution of the ownership; the public used to own x% of Facebook and now they own less than x% of the bigger Facebook that incorporates Whatsapp (assuming that Whatsapp was completely private before). Logically, the $15 billion is allocated proportionately between the existing stockholders (x% of it for the general public, y% for Mark Zuckerberg, etc). However it doesn't really make sense to think of it that way unless Whatsapp is actually worthless. What's important are the proportions. Suppose that the newly issued shares correspond to 25% of the previous share capital. Then previously the general public owned x% out of 100%, and now they own x% out of 125%, i.e. (0.8x)% of the new share capital. Whether the actual value of those stocks has changed depends entirely on the actual value that Whatsapp adds to the old Facebook. As Dheer says, only time will tell on that one. Apart from the financial consequences, dilution is sometimes considered important because it can mean a change in influence: a significant shareholder would often be able to encourage the company to act in a certain way. With a lower percentage ownership, that influence is diminished." } ]

[ { "docid": "57297", "title": "", "text": "As Chris pointed out in his comment, smaller stock exchanges may use open outcry. There are several exchanges that use open outcry/floor trading in the US, however, although they aren't necessarily stock exchanges. Having visited the three Chicago exchanges I mentioned, I can personally vouch for their continued use of a trading floor, although its use is declining in all three." } ]

[ { "docid": "445039", "title": "", "text": "\"Why are there so many stock exchanges in the world? The simple answer is that there is a lot of money to be made by charging fees to facilitate the trading of securities, but there are other factors at play here relating to new technologies. Trading volumes have increased rapidly in recent years. According to this ITG data, in 1997, 6.5 billion shares were traded on US exchanges. By 2015 this number had increased to 40.8 billion shares. There are a number of reasons for this rapid increase in volumes. Most significant would be the introduction of new technologies that allow for high volume, high frequency trading. This increase in activity has be accompanied by an increase in the number of stock exchanges. As CQM points out in his answer, there has been considerable consolidation in the ownership of \"\"legacy\"\" exchanges. For example, the NYSE merged with EuroNext in 2007, and the combined group is now owned by the Intercontinental Exchange, which also owns numerous smaller stock exchanges as well as a number of derivative/commodities exchanges. However, this consolidation in ownership has been more than matched by the creation of many \"\"virtual\"\" exchanges. In North America these virtual exchanges are called \"\"Alternative Trading Systems\"\". In Europe, they are called \"\"Multilateral Trading Facilities\"\". These new virtual exchanges, sometimes referred to as \"\"dark pools\"\", have begun to significantly eat away at the volumes of the legacy exchanges. If you look at the ITG data (linked above), you will see that the total volume of shares traded on legacy exchanges actually peaked in 2008, and has since then has decreased. This coincides roughly with the appearance of the virtual exchanges and the new high frequency trading methods. According to this paper from the SEC site, dated 2013, Alternative Trading Systems accounted for 11.3% of total volumes in 2012. This will have increased rapidly in the years since 2012. It is this loss of business that has prompted the consolidation in the ownership of the legacy exchanges. These new exchange are \"\"conceptually the same\"\" as the legacy exchanges and must play by the same regulatory rules.\"" }, { "docid": "153660", "title": "", "text": "\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \"\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\"\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \"\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\"\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\"" }, { "docid": "450760", "title": "", "text": "\"I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed. In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades: One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from \"\"X\"\" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to \"\"X\"\". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party \"\"X\"\" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this.\"" }, { "docid": "287322", "title": "", "text": "You must understand that: So, if you -- the prospective buyer -- are in Waukegan, do you take the train all the way to New York City just to buy 100 shares of stock? No. That would be absurdly expensive. So, you hire an agent in NYC who will broker a deal for you in the exchange. Fast forward 100 years, to the time when instant communications is available. Why do we now still need brokerages, when the Exchanges could set up web sites and let you do the trading? The answer is that the Exchanges don't want to have to develop the accounting systems to manage the transactions of hundreds of thousands of small traders, when existing brokerage firms already have those computerized processes in place and are opening their own web sites. Thus, in 2017 we have brokerage firms because of history." }, { "docid": "141141", "title": "", "text": "\"Something to note is that when a company announces a share buyback program there is usually a time frame and amount of shares that are important details as it isn't like the company will make one big buy back of stock generally. Rather it may take months or even years as noted in the Wikipedia article about share repurchases. Wikipedia covers some of the technical details here but to give a specific set of answers: When a company announces a share buyback program, who do they actually buy back the shares from? From the Wikipedia link: \"\"Under US corporate law there are five primary methods of stock repurchase: open market, private negotiations, repurchase 'put' rights, and two variants of self-tender repurchase: a fixed price tender offer and a Dutch auction.\"\" Thus, there are open market and a couple of other possibilities. Openly traded shares on a stock exchange? Possibly, though there are other options. Is there a fixed price that they buy back at? Sometimes. I'd think a \"\"fixed price tender offer\"\" would imply a fixed price though the open market way may take various prices. If I own shares in that company, can I get them to buy back my shares? Selective Buy-Backs is noted in Wikipedia as: \"\"In broad terms, a selective buy-back is one in which identical offers are not made to every shareholder, for example, if offers are made to only some of the shareholders in the company. In the US, no special shareholder approval of a selective buy-back is required. In the UK, the scheme must first be approved by all shareholders, or by a special resolution (requiring a 75% majority) of the members in which no vote is cast by selling shareholders or their associates. Selling shareholders may not vote in favor of a special resolution to approve a selective buy-back. The notice to shareholders convening the meeting to vote on a selective buy-back must include a statement setting out all material information that is relevant to the proposal, although it is not necessary for the company to provide information already disclosed to the shareholders, if that would be unreasonable.\"\" Thus it is possible, though how probable is another question. While not in the question, something to consider is how the buybacks can be done as a result of offsetting the dilution of employees who have stock options that may exercise them and spread the earnings over more shares, but this is more on understanding the employee stock option scenario that various big companies use when it comes to giving employees an incentive to help the stock price.\"" }, { "docid": "550992", "title": "", "text": "\"I can address what it means to \"\"pick off\"\" all those trades... As quantycuenta & littleadv have said, it is absolutely true that professionals \"\"prey\"\" on less-sophisticated market participants. They aren't in the market for charity's sake. If you're not familiar with the definition of the word \"\"arbitrage\"\", look it up. One possible strategy that can be employed with HFT machinery in order to arbitrage successfully in the stock market is to 'intercept' orders that are placed on various exchanges. In order to do this, an HFT organization watches all the transactions at once to find opportunities to buy low and sell high. A good explanation of it is described here in this NY Times article; I'll paraphrase what that article lays out. Stocks are traded through multiple exchanges The first key point to understand is that stocks listed on one exchange (i.e. the NYSE) can be sold on multiple exchanges. That's where the actual \"\"I would like to sell 100 shares of Ford stock\"\" is matched with \"\"I would like to buy 100 shares of Ford stock.\"\" There are multiple clearinghouses on the various exchanges. Your order gets presented to one exchange at a Time An ideal market maker would like to look at the order books for a given stock, say Ford, and see that in exchange A there's a sell order for 100 shares of F at $15.85, and in exchange B there's a buy order for 100 shares of F at $15.90. Arbitrage Market maker buys from A, sells in B, and pockets $0.05 * 100... $5. It's not much, but it was relatively risk free. Also, scale this up to the scale of the US' multiple stock exchanges, and there are lots of opportunities to make $5 every second. Computers are (of course) faster than people To tie it in completely with your question about 'picking off trades', HFT rigs can be set up and programmed to go faster than an average retail investor's order. Let's say you execute the trade to buy 100 shares @ $15.85 as a retail investor. The HFT rigs see your order starting to make the rounds of the different exchanges that your brokerage works through, and go out in front in a matter of milliseconds, finding the orders that are less than $15.85 and less than or equal to 100 shares. They execute a transaction, buy them up, sell to you, and pocket the difference. You have been \"\"picked off\"\". It's admittedly not the only way to use HFT equipment to make money, but it's definitely one way to do it.\"" }, { "docid": "579007", "title": "", "text": "I think the one single answer is that the answer depends on the two countries involved and their banks' practices. To find that answer, you need to ask other expats from your country living in France and ask them for their experience. Note that most expats do not know what fees they are paying. For example, in the Philippines, the lowest fee charged still involves waiting 30 days to get your money. Specifically, I opened a US dollar savings account with the minimum of US $500 required (other rules are involved for opening a bank account), deposited a personal check drawn on my US bank account (no fee charged), and waited 30 calendar days to withdraw USD bills. The Philippines bank did not have a branch in the US, but had financial arrangements with US banks. After getting USD dollars in my hand, I walked to a nearby exchange business store (which usually offered a better daily rate than a bank, but a rate between the banks' buy and sell rates) and exchange the dollars for pesos. Note that years ago, banks did not give USD bills, when dollars were scarce in the Philippines. However, this process does not work in Thailand, due to bank rules against private individuals opening a USD account, with exceptions. And there are still fees involved. March 2017" }, { "docid": "415684", "title": "", "text": "\"Well, they don't \"\"make\"\" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public). The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price. It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares.\"" }, { "docid": "499798", "title": "", "text": "Without knowing the company it’s hard to say 100%, but any regulated company in Europe or one floated on a major stock exchange will not renege on paying winnings/ban accounts for no reason. You will have either breached a term of service such as opening multiple accounts (or opening accounts while self excluded/on time out), or exhibited a behaviour that is heavily linked to fraud/other fraudulent accounts. If you are using any UK regulated site/Europe site floated in London, and you believe you are in the right and have not broken any terms and conditions, IBAS is the place to start, and to mention to the company that you are going to IBAS before you do start a case (this is often enough to turn a decision in your favour if it is a marginal case, as it is a large amount of hassle for an operator to become involved with them). If you are using an unregulated site you are out with the wolves and basically any behaviour from them is to be expected and there is very little you can do about it." }, { "docid": "79777", "title": "", "text": "\"It's simply supply and demand. First, demand: If you're an importer trying to buy from overseas, you'll need foreign currency, maybe Euros. Or if you want to make a trip to Europe you'll need to buy Euros. Or if you're a speculator and think the USD will fall in value, you'll probably buy Euros. Unless there's someone willing to sell you Euros for dollars, you can't get any. There are millions of people trying to exchange currency all over the world. If more want to buy USD, than that demand will positively influence the price of the USD (as measured in Euros). If more people want to buy Euros, well, vice versa. There are so many of these transactions globally, and the number of people and the nature of these transactions change so continuously, that the prices (exchange rates) for these currencies fluctuate continuously and smoothly. Demand is also impacted by what people want to buy and how much they want to buy it. If people generally want to invest their savings in stocks instead of dollars, i.e., if lots of people are attempting to buy stocks (by exchanging their dollars for stock), then the demand for the dollar is lower and the demand for stocks is higher. When the stock market crashes, you'll often see a spike in the exchange rate for the dollar, because people are trying to exchange stocks for dollars (this represents a lot of demand for dollars). Then there's \"\"Supply:\"\" It may seem like there are a fixed number of bills out there, or that supply only changes when Bernanke prints money, but there's actually a lot more to it than that. If you're coming from Europe and want to buy some USD from the bank, well, how much USD does the bank \"\"have\"\" and what does it mean for them to have money? The bank gets money from depositors, or from lenders. If one person puts money in a deposit account, and then the bank borrows that money from the account and lends it to a home buyer in the form of a mortgage, the same dollar is being used by two people. The home buyer might use that money to hire a carpenter, and the carpenter might put the dollar back into a bank account, and the same dollar might get lent out again. In economics this is called the \"\"multiplier effect.\"\" The full supply of money being used ends up becoming harder to calculate with this kind of debt and re-lending. Since money is something used and needed for conducting of transactions, the number of transactions being conducted (sometimes on credit) affects the \"\"supply\"\" of money. Demand and supply blur a bit when you consider people who hoard cash. If I fear the stock market, I might keep all my money in dollars. This takes cash away from companies who could invest it, takes the cash out of the pool of money being used for transactions, and leaves it waiting under my mattress. You could think of my hoarding as a type of demand for currency, or you could think of it as a reduction in the supply of currency available to conduct transactions. The full picture can be a bit more complicated, if you look at every way currencies are used globally, with swaps and various exchange contracts and futures, but this gives the basic story of where prices come from, that they are not set by some price fixer but are driven by market forces. The bank just facilitates transactions. If the last price (exchange rate) is 1.2 Dollars per Euro, and the bank gets more requests to buy USD for Euros than Euros for USD, it adjusts the rate downwards until the buying pressure is even. If the USD gets more expensive, at some point fewer people will want to buy it (or want to buy products from the US that cost USD). The bank maintains a spread (like buy for 1.19 and sell for 1.21) so it can take a profit. You should think of currency like any other commodity, and consider purchases for currency as a form of barter. The value of currency is merely a convention, but it works. The currency is needed in transactions, so it maintains value in this global market of bartering goods/services and other currencies. As supply and demand for this and other commodities/goods/services fluctuate, so does the quantity of any particular currency necessary to conduct any of these transactions. A official \"\"basket of goods\"\" and the price of those goods is used to determine consumer price indexes / inflation etc. The official price of this particular basket of goods is not a fundamental driver of exchange rates on a day to day basis.\"" }, { "docid": "426591", "title": "", "text": "\"Former financial analyst here, happy to help you. First off, you are right to not be entirely trusting of advisors and attorneys. They are usually trustworthy, but not always. And when you are new to this, the untrustworthy ones have a habit of reaching you first - you're their target market. I'll give you a little breakdown of how to plan, and a starting investment. First, figure out your future expenses. A LOT of that money may go to medical bills or associated care - don't forget the costs of modifications and customizations to items so you can have a better quality of life. Cars can be retrofit to assist you with a wheelchair, you can build a chair lift into a staircase, things like that which will be important for mobility - all depending on the lingering medical conditions. Mobility and independence will be critically important for you. Your past expenses are the best predictor of future expenses, so filter out the one-time legal and medical costs and use those to predict. Second, for investing there is a simple route to get into the stock market, and hopefully you will hear it a lot: Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). You'll hear \"\"The S&P 500 increased by 80 points today...\"\" on the news; the S&P is a combination of 500 different stocks and is used to gauge the market overall. You can buy an exchange traded fund as a stock, and it's an investment in all those components. There's an ETF for almost anything, but the most popular ones are for those big indexes. I would suggest putting a few hundred thousand into an S&P 500 indexed ETF (do it at maybe $10,000 per month, so you spread the money out and ensure you don't buy at a market peak), and then let it sit there for many years. You can buy stocks through online brokerages like Scottrade or ETrade, and they make it fairly easy - they even have local offices that you can visit for help. Stocks are the easiest way to invest. Once you've done this, you can also open a IRA (a type of retirement account with special tax benefits) and contribute several thousand dollars to it per year. I'll be happy to give more advice if/when you need it, but there are a number of good books for beginning investors that can explain it better than I. I would suggest that you avoid real estate, especially if you expect to move overseas, as it is significantly more complicated and has maintenance costs and taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "109796", "title": "", "text": "You might have better luck using Quandl as a source. They have free databases, you just need to register to access them. They also have good api's, easier to use than the yahoo api's Their WIKI database of stock prices is curated and things like this are fixed (www.quandl.com/WIKI ), but I'm not sure that covers the London stock exchange. They do, however, have other databases that cover the London stock exchange." }, { "docid": "3463", "title": "", "text": "You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems." }, { "docid": "354811", "title": "", "text": "\"There is more than one exchange where stock can be traded. For example, there is the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. In fact, if you look at all the exchanges, there is essentially continuous trading 24/7 for many financial instruments (eg US government bonds). The closing price quoted in papers is usually the price at the close on the NYSE. However, options close after that and so there is after-the-close trading in many stocks with active options, so the price at the close of options trading at CBOE is often used. The \"\"real\"\" price is always changing. But for the purpose of discussion, using the closing price in NYSE (for NYSE listed stocks) is pretty standard and unlikely to be questioned. Likewise, using Bloomberg's price makes sense. Using some after-hours or small market quote could lead to differences with commonly accepted numbers - until tomorrow :)\"" }, { "docid": "343042", "title": "", "text": "I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore." }, { "docid": "305907", "title": "", "text": "To transfer US$30,000 from the USA to Europe, ask your European banker for the SWIFT transfer instructions. Typically in the USA the sending bank needs a SWIFT code and an account number, the name and address of the recipient, and the amount to transfer. A change of currency can be made as part of the transfer. The typical fee to do this is under US$100 and the time, under 2 days. But you should ask (or have the sender ask) the bank in the USA about the fees. In addition to the fee the bank may try to make a profit on the change of currency. This might be 1-2%. If you were going to do this many times, one way to go about it is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, which does business in various countries. They have a foreign exchange facility whereby you can deposit various currencies into your account, and they stay in that currency. You can then trade the currencies at market rates when you wish. They are also a stock broker and you can also trade on the various exchanges in different countries. I would say, though, they they mostly want customers already experienced with trading. I do not know if they will allow someone other than you to pay money into your account. Trading companies based in the USA do not like to be in the position of collecting on cheques owed to you, that is more the business of banks. Large banks in the USA with physical locations charge monthly fees of $10/mo or more that might be waived if you leave money on deposit. Online banks have significantly lower fees. All US banks are required to follow US anti-terrorist and anti-crime regulations and will tend to expect a USA address and identity documents to open an account with normal customers. A good international bank in Europe can also do many of these same sorts of things for you. I've had an account with Fortis. They were ok, there were no monthly fees but there were fees for transactions. In some countries I understand the post even runs a bank. Paypal can be a possibility, but fees can be high ~3% for transfers, and even higher commissions for currency change. On the other hand, it is probably one of the easiest and fastest ways to move amounts of $1000 or less, provided both people have paypal accounts." }, { "docid": "123320", "title": "", "text": "\"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \"\"permit you\"\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry!  Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\"" }, { "docid": "226568", "title": "", "text": "\"It is unusual to need a consultant to open a bank account for you, and I would also be concerned that perhaps the consultant could take the money and do nothing, or continue to demand various sums of money for \"\"expenses\"\" like permits, licenses, identity check, etc. until you give up. Some of the more accepted ways to open a bank account are: A: Call up an established bank and follow their instructions to open a personal account . Make sure you are calling on a real bank, one that has been around a while. Hints: has permanent locations, in the local phone book, and has shares traded on a national stock exchange. Call the bank directly, don't use a number given to you by a 3rd party consultant, as it may be a trick... Discuss on the phone and find out if you can open an account by mail or if you need to visit in person. B: Create a company or branch office in the foreign country, assuming this is for business or investing. and open an account by appointing someone (like a lawyer or accountant or similar professional) in the foreign country to represent the company to open an account in person. If you are a US citizen, you will want to ask your CPA/accountant/tax lawyer about the TD F 90-22.1 Foreign Account Bank Report form, and the FATCA Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. There can be very large fines for not making the required reports. The requirements to open a bank account have become more strict in many countries, so don't be surprised if they will not open an account for a foreigner with no local address, if that is your situation.\"" }, { "docid": "179527", "title": "", "text": "If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle." } ]

[ { "docid": "94689", "title": "", "text": "Questrade is a Canada based broker offering US stock exchange transactions as well. It says this right on their homepage. ETFs are traded like stocks, so the answer is yes. Why did you think they only offered funds?" } ]

[ { "docid": "159822", "title": "", "text": "\"ETFs are well suited to day trading, but you should be mindful of the bid-ask spread. See article: Commission-free ETFs are a great way to save money, but watch the bid-ask spread too. Bid-ask spread is largely a function of liquidity, or the volume of buyers and sellers for an asset during a particular moment in time. ... It may be more difficult to trade certain assets that are less liquid, where bid-ask spreads can be higher. Think some penny stocks. If you have the choice, compare the spreads of the ETF and the target stock. Longer-term \"\"keep & hold\"\" trading on ETFs tracking futures can be somewhat disadvantageous. Futures contracts roll-over every month. Exchange traders have to sell and buy in on the next contract. ETFs don't reflect the price differential between the futures contract. See here for more detail on that: Positioning For An Oil ETF Rebound? Watch For Contango Contango occurs when the price on a futures contract is higher than the expected future spot price, which creates the upward sloping curve on future commodity prices over time. Essentially, the phenomenon reflects a current spot price that is lower than the futures price. ... While this phenomena is a normal occurrence in the futures market, contango can have a negative effect on ETFs.\"" }, { "docid": "224765", "title": "", "text": "\"An ETF does not track any one individual stock. It \"\"is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund.\"\" Check out this link to learn more about ETFs. The easiest way see what ETF tracks a stock is to determine what sector and industry that company is in and find some ETF that trade it. The ETF will likely trade that stock, assuming that its market cap and exchange it trades on fits within the parameters of the ETF.\"" }, { "docid": "531005", "title": "", "text": "\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"" }, { "docid": "127566", "title": "", "text": "Probably the easiest way for individual investors is oil ETFs. In particular, USO seems to be fairly liquid and available. You should check carefully the bid/ask spreads in this volatile time. There are other oil ETFs and leveraged and inverse oil ETFs exist as well, but one should heed the warnings about leveraged ETFs. Oil futures are another possibility though they can be more complicated and tough to access for an individual investor. Note that futures have a drift associated with them as well. Be careful close or roll any positions before delivery, of course, unless you have a need for a bunch of actual barrels of oil. Finally, you can consider investing in commodities ETFs or Energy stocks or stock ETFs that are strongly related to the price of oil. As Keshlam mentions, care is advised in all these methods. Many people thought oil reached its bottom a few weeks back then OPEC decided to do nothing and the price dropped even further." }, { "docid": "488015", "title": "", "text": "\"IMHO It is definitively not too early to start learning and thinking about personal finances and also about investing. If you like to try stock market games, make sure to use one that includes a realistic fee structure simulation as well - otherwise there'll be a very unpleasant awakening when switching to reality... I'd like to stress the need for low fees with the brokerage account! Sit down and calculate how much fees different brokers take for a \"\"portfolio\"\" of say, 1 ETF, 1 bond, 1 share of about $500 or $1000 each (e.g. order fee, annual fee, fee for paying out interest/dividend). In my experience, it is good if you can manage to make the first small investing steps before starting your career. Real jobs tend to need lots of time (particularly at the beginning), so time to learn investing is extremely scarce right at the time when you for the first time in your life earn money that could/should be invested. I'm talking of very slowly starting with a single purchase of say an ETF, a single bond next time you have saved up a suitable amount of toy money, then maybe a single share (and essentially not doing anything with them in order to avoid further fees). While such a \"\"portfolio\"\" is terrible with respect to diversification and relative fees*, this gives you the possibility to learn the procedures, to see how the fees cut in, what to do wrt taxes etc. This is why I speak about toy money and why I consider this money an investment in education. * An order fee of, say, $10 on a $500 position are terrible 4% (2 x $10) for buying + selling - depending on your local taxes, that would be several years of dividend yield for say some arbitrary Dow Jones ETF. Nevertheless, purchase + sale together are less than 3 cinema tickets.\"" }, { "docid": "234115", "title": "", "text": "You can buy the exchange traded fund ETFS WTI Crude Oil (CRUD), amongst other ETFS products. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CRUD:LSE:USD Note these funds do not 'jump' when the crude oil futures contracts are in contango (e.g. June contract is priced higher than May) and the futures roll-over, as they do monthly. When this happens the EFTS continues with no movement. Currently May is $52.85 and June is $54.15 (so in contango). LSE:CRUD is $13.40 and if the crude oil futures rolled-over it would carry straight on at that value. For this reason one should be cautious buying and holding LSE:CRUD longterm." }, { "docid": "140757", "title": "", "text": "I think that he means that gold is debt the same way that money is debt, because gold for the longest time literally was money. Yes it is also a commodity, but it and silver were the only commodity universally accepted in exchange for promissory notes. There was no apple reserve, shoe reserve or deer reserve as in OP's explanation, that the town priest held on to in which to make those notes credible for tender around town. So basically everyone decided that instead of trading a bushel for apples for some deer meat, they decided they would trade the apples for gold, then they would trade that gold for the deer meat. They used the gold because they knew it was a real, tangible thing that was safely tucked away. No bad deer season or bad harvest would affect the actual gold itself, which is why it was used as the middleman in the transaction." }, { "docid": "472663", "title": "", "text": "\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"" }, { "docid": "195100", "title": "", "text": "Given those assumptions (which I happen to think are reasonable) it seems to me the obvious place is to buy non-Australian assets, such as the Vanguard VTS (total US share market) and VEU (world ex-US) ETFs, and perhaps also some international fixed-interest ETFs. I think keeping a certain amount of cash would be prudent anyhow. If you felt very sure this was going to happen, you could borrow in Australia and buy foreign assets, expecting that as the AUD falls, the relative cost of the borrowing will also fall. This is obviously fairly risky, not least because Australian interest rates are already high and may go much higher, and while the rates go up the exchange rate will also likely go up. As I mentioned on another answer, I think buying gold or other commodity instruments is a poor choice here because the Australian economy and the AUD is so tied to those prices already." }, { "docid": "436899", "title": "", "text": "\"I think that its ok to keep your \"\"emergency fund\"\" money in cash in your home. By emergency fund, I mean $1,000-2,500, that doesn't get touched. There are risks. You have a risk that the money will be stolen, or be wholly or partially destroyed, or even lost if you stash it somewhere and forget. You're also not going to earn interest. So go for it. But keep your emergency funds in cash -- if you want to buy silver and gold, that's fine...you need to treat them as commodity investments.\"" }, { "docid": "493366", "title": "", "text": "Here are the specific Vanguard index funds and ETF's I use to mimic Ray Dalio's all weather portfolio for my taxable investment savings. I invest into this with Vanguard personal investor and brokerage accounts. Here's a summary of the performance results from 2007 to today: 2007 is when the DBC commodity fund was created, so that's why my results are only tested back that far. I've tested the broader asset class as well and the results are similar, but I suggest doing that as well for yourself. I use portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest the results of my portfolio along with various asset classes, that's been tremendously useful. My opinionated advice would be to ignore the local investment advisor recommendations. Nobody will ever care more about your money than you, and their incentives are misaligned as Tony mentions in his book. Mutual funds were chosen over ETF's for the simplicity of auto-investment. Unfortunately I have to manually buy the ETF shares each month (DBC and GLD). I'm 29 and don't use this for retirement savings. My retirement is 100% VSMAX. I'll adjust this in 20 years or so to be more conservative. However, when I get close to age 45-50 I'm planning to shift into this allocation at a market high point. When I approach retirement, this is EXACTLY where I want to be. Let's say you had $2.7M in your retirement account on Oct 31, 2007 that was invested in 100% US Stocks. In Feb of 2009 your balance would be roughly $1.35M. If you wanted to retire in 2009 you most likely couldn't. If you had invested with this approach you're account would have dropped to $2.4M in Feb of 2009. Disclaimer: I'm not a financial planner or advisor, nor do I claim to be. I'm a software engineer and I've heavily researched this approach solely for my own benefit. I have absolutely no affiliation with any of the tools, organizations, or funds mentioned here and there's no possible way for me to profit or gain from this. I'm not recommending anyone use this, I'm merely providing an overview of how I choose to invest my own money. Take or leave it, that's up to you. The loss/gain incured from this is your responsibility, and I can't be held accountable." }, { "docid": "97964", "title": "", "text": "Technically, you could improve your odds in this hypothetical pre-apocolyptic economy by diversifying your digital and tangible precious-metal-commodity portfolio by going in with gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and others. That being said I'm not sure if one can access tangible stores of all these metals..." }, { "docid": "449941", "title": "", "text": "\"These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels: 1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018? 2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements. 3. The fundamental idea of \"\"investing\"\" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with \"\"investing\"\" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really \"\"invest\"\" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts. A company fundamentally is a logical investment (barring doubts about management's ability to create this value). It is like a black box that prints more money over time than you feed it. Purses do not; gold does not; oil does not. Don't invest in purses. Collect then if you love them, but don't bank on a payday.\"" }, { "docid": "597351", "title": "", "text": "It sounds for the most part you are a 'buy and hold' type investor and continue to contribute monthly. I follow the same philosophy and continue to contribute monthly as well. I use Questrade.com as my online broker. For trading it costs a penny per share with a minimum cost of $4.95 (so if you only buy 100 shares you will still pay $4.95) up to a maximum of $9.95 per trade (so if you buy 10,000 shares you only pay $9.95. Three trades at $4.95 per month across the year would be $178.20. This is assuming you are trading less then 495 share each trade. So switching to Questrade would save you an additional $111.80 per year! Multiply over number of year before you retire plus compound interest which could accrue and that can quite a bit of extra savings. You pay nothing else to Questrade either. No management fees, etc. You manage the accounts." }, { "docid": "260085", "title": "", "text": "\"Some technical indicators (e.g. Williams %R) indicate whether the market is overbought or oversold. ... Every time a stock or commodity is bought, it is also sold. And vice versa. So how can anything ever be over-bought or over-sold? But I'm sure I'm missing something. What is it? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how equity markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers, who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for Market Makers to accumulate a large number of shares, without end-investors being involved on both sides of the transaction. This is one example of how instruments can be over-bought or over-sold. Since Williams %R creates over-bought and over-sold signals based on historical averages of open / close prices, perhaps it's better to think of these terms as \"\"over-valued\"\" and \"\"under-valued\"\". Of course, there could be good reason for instruments to open or close outside their expected ranges, so Williams %R is just a tool to give you clues... not a real evaluation of the instrument's true value.\"" }, { "docid": "330729", "title": "", "text": "Any ETF has expenses, including fees, and those are taken out of the assets of the fund as spelled out in the prospectus. Typically a fund has dividend income from its holdings, and it deducts the expenses from the that income, and only the net dividend is passed through to the ETF holder. In the case of QQQ, it certainly will have dividend income as it approximates a large stock index. The prospectus shows that it will adjust daily the reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to reflect accrued expenses, and the cash to pay them will come from the dividend cash. (If the dividend does not cover the expenses, the NAV will decline away from the modeled index.) Note that the NAV is not the ETF price found on the exchange, but is the underlying value. The price tends to track the NAV fairly closely, both because investors don't want to overpay for an ETF or get less than it is worth, and also because large institutions may buy or redeem a large block of shares (to profit) when the price is out of line. This will bring the price closer to that of the underlying asset (e.g. the NASDAQ 100 for QQQ) which is reflected by the NAV." }, { "docid": "161311", "title": "", "text": "No, this is not generally possible, as each security purchase is booked as a separate order => hence separate transaction. You can do this through purchasing of a fund, i.e.: purchasing one share of a ETF will get you a relative share of the ETF holdings, but the actual holdings are not up to you then." }, { "docid": "426771", "title": "", "text": "The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer." }, { "docid": "425020", "title": "", "text": "I think by definition there aren't, generally speaking, any indicators (as in chart indicators, I assume you mean) for fundamental analysis. Off the top of my head I can't think of one chart indicator that I wouldn't call 'technical', even though a couple could possibly go either way and I'm sure someone will help prove me wrong. But the point I want to make is that to do fundamental analysis, it is most certainly more time consuming. Depending on what instrument you're investing in, you need to have a micro perspective (company specific details) and a macro perspective (about the industry it's in). If you're investing in sector ETFs or the like, you'd be more reliant on the macro analysis. If you're investing in commodities, you'll need to consider macro analysis in multiple countries who are big producers/consumers of the item. There's no cut and dried way to do it, however I personally opt for a macro analysis of sector ETFs and then use technical analysis to determine my entry and/or exit." } ]

[ { "docid": "133644", "title": "", "text": "Is this an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP)? If so, and there is no required holding period, selling right away is essentially a guaranteed bonus with minimal risk. One caveat is that sometimes it takes a while to actually receive the shares at your brokerage, and in the meantime your company may have an earnings report that could cause the share price to drop. If your discount is only 5%, for example, a bad earnings report could easily wipe that out. The only other cons I can think of is ESPP contributions being withheld from you for months (albeit for a virtually guaranteed return), and it complicates your taxes a bit. On the flip side, another pro is that after you sell the shares, you are more likely to invest that money rather than spend it." } ]

[ { "docid": "319568", "title": "", "text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"" }, { "docid": "533933", "title": "", "text": "My view is from the Netherlands, a EU country. Con: Credit cards are more risky. If someone finds your card, they can use it for online purchases without knowing any PIN, just by entering the card number, expiration date, and security code on the back. Worse, sometimes that information is stored in databases, and those get stolen by hackers! Also, you can have agreed to do periodic payments on some website and forgot about them, stopped using the service, and be surprised about the charge later. Debit cards usually need some kind of device that requires your PIN to do online payments (the ones I have in the Netherlands do, anyway), and automated periodic payments are authorized at your bank where you can get an overview of the currently active ones. Con: Banks get a percentage of each credit card payment. Unlike debit cards where companies usually pay a tiny fixed fee for each transaction (of, say, half a cent), credit card payments usually cost them a percentage and it comes to much more, a significant part of the profit margin. I feel this is just wrong. Con: automatic monthly payment can come at an unexpected moment With debit cards, the amount is withdrawn immediately and if the money isn't there, you get an error message allowing you to pay some other way (credit card after all, other bank account, cash, etc). When a recent monthly payment from my credit card was due to be charged from my bank account recently, someone else had been paid from it earlier that day and the money wasn't there. So I had to pay interest, on something I bought weeks ago... Pro: Credit cards apparently have some kind of insurance. I've never used this and don't know how it works, but apparently you can get your money back easily after fraudulent charges. Pro: Credit cards can be more easily used internationally for online purchases I don't know how it is with Visa or MC-issued debit cards, but many US sites accept only cards that have number/expiration date/security code and thus my normal bank account debit card isn't useable. Conclusion: definitely have one, but only use it when absolutely necessary." }, { "docid": "402174", "title": "", "text": "I use GnuCash which I really like. However, I've never used any other personal finance software so I can't really compare. Before GnuCash, I used an Excel spreadsheet which works fine for very basic finances. Pros Cons" }, { "docid": "197151", "title": "", "text": "Assuming US. The only con that I know of is that hassle factor. You have to remember to sell when you get the new shares, and your taxes become a bit more complicated; the discount that you receive is taxed as ordinary income, and then any change in the price of the stock between when you receive it and you sell it will be considered a capital gain or loss. It's not hard to account for properly if you keep good records." }, { "docid": "91870", "title": "", "text": "I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share." }, { "docid": "163396", "title": "", "text": "What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year." }, { "docid": "551485", "title": "", "text": "This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due." }, { "docid": "224320", "title": "", "text": "You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money?" }, { "docid": "28942", "title": "", "text": "Mint.com—Easy solution to provide insight into finances. Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "103439", "title": "", "text": "The main problem I have with Uber is they represent themselves differently in some contexts than others. To most customers, Uber is Uber, not the individual who is driving. Conceptually, individuals not being able to shield themselves behind a corporation is an interesting idea, with both pros and cons." }, { "docid": "324273", "title": "", "text": "Excel Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "180311", "title": "", "text": "I like You Need A Budget (YNAB) Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "110465", "title": "", "text": "\"Consider that there are some low-probability, high-impact risk factors involved with property management. For example, an old house has lead paint and may have illegal modifications, unknown to you, that pose some hazard. All of your \"\"pros\"\" are logical, and the cons are relatively minor. Just consult an attorney to look for potential landmines.\"" }, { "docid": "149306", "title": "", "text": "This is allowed somewhat infrequently. You can often purchase stocks through DRIPs which might have little or no commission. For example Duke Energy (DUK) runs their plan internally, so you are buying from them directly. There is no setup fee, or reinvestment fee. There is a fee to sell. Other companies might have someone else manage the DRIP but might subsidize some transaction costs giving you low cost to invest. Often DRIPs charge relatively large amounts to sell and they are not very nimble if trading is what you are after. You can also go to work for a company, and often they allow you to buy stock from them at a discount (around 15% discount is common). You can use a discount broker as well. TradeKing, which is not the lowest cost broker, allows buys and sells at 4.95 per trade. If trading 100 shares that is similar in cost to the DUK DRIP." }, { "docid": "281572", "title": "", "text": "That is where I think Walmart comes in to buy up a business like this. With their network of stores and the insane buying power they have the can push a good solid quality that the middle class American wants and do it very cheaply. I feel this will be their main combat against Amazon buying whole foods. Currently Walmart makes more on grocery sales than anything else as a hole and will continue to do so because of what and how they are doing it. Walmart is sneaky as fuck when it comes to what they can do and how they can do it. Even Walmart buying up Advanced Auto Parts is a solid counter move to Amazon buying Whole Foods...the next step is buying a Blue Apron type business... and with how Blue Apron is doing financially and given their name they are entering buy off territory. In my humble albeit non pro status in the stock market my 3 buys are Snap Chat, GoPro, and Walmart for long term retire and never have to worry about money again companies. I am by no means an expert but I have never come close to losing money in the stock market and do a good amount of research before I invest. Snapchat is my top 1 tbh. Sorry for going on a tangent lol" }, { "docid": "246547", "title": "", "text": "As far as the spam mail goes, I own a rental (in Connecticut) and live in Massachusetts, I get very little mail related to this property. I view this as a non-compelling reason. Your other reasons pick up quick in value. The protection from the rest of your assets is helpful, and the one con for most is the inability to get a loan with such a structure, but in your case, a cash purchase is mentioned. I don't know what the fees are to start an LLC, but overall, I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Yes, your Pro 4 looks good, an ongoing business with a track record will help the next purchase." }, { "docid": "392124", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it really depends on what work/lifestyle you are looking for. I'm sure your more than capable of going down either route, but you should weigh up the pros and cons of each A consultant would be great, you'd be your own boss and you have overall say on how your business/career plans out, but be prepared to put in a hell of a lot of work to get it off the ground. Long hours, little time for social/family etc. But in the long run it'll pay off Employee, no worries about running your company, just turn up and perform your duties. You'll get the whole benefit package: healthcare/pension etc. You can probably go on expense paid training courses etc It depends, do you want to just be an employee working \"\"for the man\"\" or do you want to be \"\"the man\"\"? I wish you luck in whatever you do! :D\"" }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" }, { "docid": "140567", "title": "", "text": "Insurance in India is offered by Private companies as well [ICICI, Maxbupa, SBI, Max and tons of other companies]. These are priavte companies, as Insurance sectors one has to look for long term stability, not everyone can just open an Insurance company, there are certain capital requirements. Initially the shareholding pattern was that Indian company should have a majority shareholding, any foreign company can have only 26% share's. This limit has now been extended to 49%, so while the control of the private insurance company will still be with Indian's the foreign companies can invest upto 49%. It's a economic policy decission and the outcome whether positive or negative will be known after 10 years of implemenation :) Pro's: - Brings more funds into the Insurance segment, there by bringing strength to the company - Better global practise on risk & data modelling may reduce premium for most - Innovation in product offering - More Foreign Exchange for country that is badly needed. Con's: - The Global companies may hike premium to make more profits. - They may come up with complex products that common man will not understand and will lead to loss - They may take back money anytime as they are here for profit and not for cause. Pension today is offered only by Government Companies. There is a move to allow private companies to offer pension. Today life insurance companies can launch Pension schemes, however on maturity the annuity amount needs to be invested into LIC to get an annuity [monthly pension]." } ]

[ { "docid": "521095", "title": "", "text": "\"The major pros tend to be: The major cons tend to be: Being in California, you've got state income tax to worry about as well. It might be worth using some of that extra cash to hire someone who knows what they're doing to handle your taxes the first year, at least. I've always maxed mine out, because it's always seemed like a solid way to make a few extra dollars. If you can live without the money in your regular paycheck, it's always seemed that the rewards outweighed the risks. I've also always immediately sold the stock, since I usually feel like being employed at the company is enough \"\"eggs in that basket\"\" without holding investments in the same company. (NB: I've participated in several of these ESPP programs at large international US-based software companies, so this is from my personal experience. You should carefully review the terms of your ESPP before signing up, and I'm a software engineer and not a financial advisor.)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "262546", "title": "", "text": "\"Outside of broadly hedging interest rate risk as I mentioned in my other answer, there may be a way that you could do what you are asking more directly: You may be able to commit to purchasing a house/condo in a pre-construction phase, where your bank may be willing to lock in a mortgage for you at today's rates. The mortgage wouldn't actually be required until you take ownership from the builder, but the rates would be set in advance. Some caveats for this approach: (1) You would need to know the house/condo you want to move into in advance, and you would be committing to that move today. (2) The bank may not be willing to commit to rates that far in advance. (3) Construction would likely take far less than 5 years, unless you are buying a condo (which is the reason I mention condos specifically). (4) You are also committing to the price you are paying for your property. This hedges you somewhat against price fluctuation in your future area, but because you currently own property, you are already somewhat hedged against property price fluctuation, meaning this is taking on additional risk. The 'savings' associated with this plan as they relate to your original question (which are really just hedging against interest rate fluctuations) are far outweighed by the external pros and cons associated with buying property in advance like this. By that I mean - if it was something else you were already considering, this might be a (small) tick in the \"\"Pro\"\" column, but otherwise is far too committal / complex to be considered for interest rate hedging on its own.\"" }, { "docid": "149306", "title": "", "text": "This is allowed somewhat infrequently. You can often purchase stocks through DRIPs which might have little or no commission. For example Duke Energy (DUK) runs their plan internally, so you are buying from them directly. There is no setup fee, or reinvestment fee. There is a fee to sell. Other companies might have someone else manage the DRIP but might subsidize some transaction costs giving you low cost to invest. Often DRIPs charge relatively large amounts to sell and they are not very nimble if trading is what you are after. You can also go to work for a company, and often they allow you to buy stock from them at a discount (around 15% discount is common). You can use a discount broker as well. TradeKing, which is not the lowest cost broker, allows buys and sells at 4.95 per trade. If trading 100 shares that is similar in cost to the DUK DRIP." }, { "docid": "67625", "title": "", "text": "It appears your company is offering roughly a 25% discount on its shares. I start there as a basis to give you a perspective on what the 30% matching offer means to you in terms of value. Since you are asking for things to consider not whether to do it, below are a few considerations (there may be others) in general you should think about your sources of income. if this company is your only source of income, it is more prudent to make your investment in their shares a smaller portion of your overall investment/savings strategy. what is the holding period for the shares you purchase. some companies institute a holding period or hold duration which restricts when you can sell the shares. Generally, the shorter the duration period the less risk there is for you. So if you can buy the shares and immediately sell the shares that represents the least amount of relative risk. what are the tax implications for shares offered at such a discount. this may be something you will need to consult a tax adviser to get a better understanding. your company should also be able to provide a reasonable interpretation of the tax consequences for the offering as well. is the stock you are buying liquid. liquid, in this case, is just a fancy term for asking how many shares trade in a public market daily. if it is a very liquid stock you can have some confidence that you may be able to sell out of your shares when you need. personally, i would review the company's financial statements and public statements to investors to get a better understanding of their competitive positioning, market size and prospects for profitability and growth. given you are a novice at this it may be good idea to solicit the opinion of your colleagues at work and others who have insight on the financial performance of the company. you should consider other investment options as well. since this seems to be your first foray into investing you should consider diversifying your savings into a few investments areas (such as big market indices which typically should be less volatile). last, there is always the chance that your company could fail. Companies like Enron, Lehman Brothers and many others that were much smaller than those two examples have failed in the past. only you can gauge your tolerance for risk. As a young investor, the best place to start is to use index funds which track a broader universe of stocks or bonds as the first step in building an investment portfolio. once you own a good set of index funds you can diversify with smaller investments." }, { "docid": "257722", "title": "", "text": "\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \"\"discount\"\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\"" }, { "docid": "451737", "title": "", "text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"" }, { "docid": "553331", "title": "", "text": "Your cons say it all. I would not be buying stocks based soley on a high dividend yield. In fact companies with very high dividend yields tend to do poorer than companies investing at least part of their earnings back into the company. Make sure at least that the company's earnings is more than the dividend yield being offered." }, { "docid": "344740", "title": "", "text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"" }, { "docid": "272008", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes when I place an order with my broker they send it out to the exchange. - For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? I may be mistaken(I highly doubt it), but from my understanding you cannot trade directly through an exchange as a retail investor. BATS allows membership but it is only for Your firm must be a registered broker-dealer, registered with a Self Regulatory Organization (SRO) and connected with a clearing firm. No apple (aapl) is listed on the NASDAQ so trades go through the NASDAQ for aapl. Caterpillar Inc (CAT) is listed on the NYSE so trades go through the NYSE. The exchange you trade on is dependent on the security, if it is listed on the NYSE then you trade on the NYSE. As a regular investor you will be going through a broker. When looking to purchase a security it is more important to know about the company and less important to know what exchange it is listed on. Since there are rules a company must comply with for it to be listed on certain exchanges, it does make a difference but that is more the case when speaking about a stock listed Over the Counter(OTC) or NYSE. It is not important when asking NYSE or NASDAQ? Selecting a broker is something that's dependent on your needs. You should ask your self, \"\"whats important to me?\"\", \"\"Do I want apps(IE: iPhone, android)?\"\" \"\"Do I need fancy trading tools?\"\". Generally all the brokers you listed will most likely do the trick for you. Some review sites: Brokerage Review Online Broker Review 2012 Barron's 2012 Online Broker Review\"" }, { "docid": "94710", "title": "", "text": "PenFed Platinum Cashback Rewards Visa Card is another good choice. Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "340730", "title": "", "text": "When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well..." }, { "docid": "392124", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it really depends on what work/lifestyle you are looking for. I'm sure your more than capable of going down either route, but you should weigh up the pros and cons of each A consultant would be great, you'd be your own boss and you have overall say on how your business/career plans out, but be prepared to put in a hell of a lot of work to get it off the ground. Long hours, little time for social/family etc. But in the long run it'll pay off Employee, no worries about running your company, just turn up and perform your duties. You'll get the whole benefit package: healthcare/pension etc. You can probably go on expense paid training courses etc It depends, do you want to just be an employee working \"\"for the man\"\" or do you want to be \"\"the man\"\"? I wish you luck in whatever you do! :D\"" }, { "docid": "319568", "title": "", "text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"" }, { "docid": "48718", "title": "", "text": "\"You can hold a wide variety of investments in your TFSA account, including stocks such as SLF. But if the stocks are being purchased via a company stock purchase plan, they are typically deposited in a regular margin account with a brokerage firm (a few companies may issue physical stock certificates but that is very rare these days). That account would not be a TFSA but you can perform what's called an \"\"in-kind\"\" transfer to move them into a TFSA that you open with either the same brokerage firm, or a different one. There will be a fee for the transfer - check with the brokerage that currently holds the stock to find out how costly that will be. Assuming the stock gained in value while you held it outside the TFSA, this transfer will result in capital gains tax that you'll have to pay when you file your taxes for the year in which the transfer occurs. The tax would be calculated by taking the value at time of transfer, minus the purchase price (or the market value at time of purchase, if your plan allowed you to buy it at a discounted price; the discounted amount will be automatically taxed by your employer). 50% of the capital gain is added to your annual income when calculating taxes owed. Normally when you sell a stock that has lost value, you can actually get a \"\"capital loss\"\" deduction that is used to offset gains that you made in other stocks, or redeemed against capital gains tax paid in previous years, or carried forward to apply against gains in future years. However, if the stock decreased in value and you transfer it, you are not eligible to claim a capital loss. I'm not sure why you said \"\"TFSA for a family member\"\", as you cannot directly contribute to someone else's TFSA account. You can give them a gift of money or stocks, which they can deposit in their TFSA account, but that involves that extra step of gifting, and the money/stocks become their property to do with as they please. Now that I've (hopefully) answered all your questions, let me offer you some advice, as someone who also participates in an employee stock purchase plan. Holding stock in the company that you work for is a bad idea. The reason is simple: if something terrible happens to the company, their stock will plummet and at the same time they may be forced to lay off many employees. So just at the time when you lose your job and might want to sell your stock, suddenly the value of your stocks has gone way down! So you really should sell your company shares at least once a year, and then use that money to invest in your TFSA account. You also don't want to put all your eggs in one basket - you should be spreading your investment among many companies, or better yet, buy index mutual funds or ETFs which hold all the companies in a certain index. There's lots of good info about index investing available at Canadian Couch Potato. The types of investments recommended there are all possible to purchase inside a TFSA account, to shelter the growth from being taxed. EDIT: Here is an article from MoneySense that talks about transferring stocks into a TFSA. It also mentions the importance of having a diversified portfolio!\"" }, { "docid": "180311", "title": "", "text": "I like You Need A Budget (YNAB) Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "209716", "title": "", "text": "Well, you can just say that 1 dollar contributed = one share and pay out dividends based on number of shares. That makes it pretty easy to make things fair based. There are pros and cons with this pooling approach." }, { "docid": "95243", "title": "", "text": "So the key factor here, IMHO, is the amount we are talking about. $2K is just not a lot of money. If you lose every penny, you can recover. On the other hand it is unlikely to make you wealthy. So if I was you I would buy in, more for the fun of it all. Now if it was a large amount of money that we were talking about it would be about a percentage of my net worth. For example, lets say the minimum was 20K, and you really believed in the company. If I had a net worth of less than 200K, I would not do it. If I had a larger net worth, I would consider it unless I was near retirement. So if I was 30, hand a net worth of 300K, I would probably invest as even if I did lose it all, I could recover. Having said all that it does not sound like you completely agree that the company will be profitable. So in that case, don't buy. Also, I have the opportunity to buy my own company's stock at a discount. However, I do not for two reasons. The first is I don't like investing in the company I work for. Secondly, they require you to hold the stock for a year." }, { "docid": "382452", "title": "", "text": "Theres obviously a ton of licensing/certifications that go into an insurance company. I'm wondering anyone has experience with a start up or small insurance company and can speak to the pros and cons of it. More specifically, is there a certain rule about how much money should be set aside as float assuming a policy limit of 10 million? I'd imagine it depends on the type of coverage to a large degree. Just beginning to start the process of researching this based on an unexpected bit of news/opportunity. Thanks." }, { "docid": "246547", "title": "", "text": "As far as the spam mail goes, I own a rental (in Connecticut) and live in Massachusetts, I get very little mail related to this property. I view this as a non-compelling reason. Your other reasons pick up quick in value. The protection from the rest of your assets is helpful, and the one con for most is the inability to get a loan with such a structure, but in your case, a cash purchase is mentioned. I don't know what the fees are to start an LLC, but overall, I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Yes, your Pro 4 looks good, an ongoing business with a track record will help the next purchase." }, { "docid": "324273", "title": "", "text": "Excel Pros: Cons:" } ]

[ { "docid": "12232", "title": "", "text": "Some other answers mention the ability to sell at grant. This is very important. If you have that ability, think about your guaranteed return. In my case, I get a 15% discount on the lowest 6 month window price from the last two years. If you do the math, the worst case return can be calculated: 1) Money that from the beginning of the window, I make 15% for 6 months (30% annual return guaranteed) 2) Money at the end of the window (say the last month) is 15% for one month (180% annual return guaranteed) In the end, your average holding window for your money is about 3 months (you can calculate it exactly). At that rate, you have a guaranteed 60% annual return. You can't beat that anywhere, with a significant upside if your company stock is increasing. So, if your company has an instant sell at grant option, you have to be brain dead not to do it. If it takes time to get your shares, then you need to look at the volatility of the stock to see how big the chance of losing money is. To generalize to a formula (if that's what you want): WM = purchase window (in months); D = Discount Percentage; GR = Guaranteed Return GR = 12/(WM/2) * D = 6*D/WM One last thing, If you are going to participate in ESPP, make you that you understand how to do your taxes yourself. I haven't found a tax person yet who does ESPP correctly (including an ex IRS agent), so I always have to do my taxes myself to make sure they get done correctly." } ]

[ { "docid": "509608", "title": "", "text": "Since your child is 2, he has a long time horizon for investment. Assuming the savings will be used at age 19, that's 17 years. So, I think your best bet is to invest primarily in equities (i.e. stock-based funds) and inside an RESP. Why equities? Historically, equities have outperformed debt and cash over longer time periods. But, equities can be volatile in the short term. So, do purchase some fixed-income investments (e.g. 30% government bonds and money market funds), and do also spread your equity money around as well -- e.g. buy some international funds in addition to Canadian funds. Rebalance every year, and as your child gets closer to university age, start shifting some assets out of equities and into fixed-income, to reduce risk. You don't want the portfolio torpedoed by an economic crisis the year before the money is required! Next, why inside an RESP? Finally... what if your kid doesn't attend post-secondary education? First, you should probably get a Family RESP, not a Group RESP. Group RESPs have strict rules and may forfeit contributions if your kid doesn't attend. Have a look at Choosing the Right RESP and Canadian Capitalist's post The Pros and Cons of Group RESP Plans. In a Family plan, if none of your kids end up attending post-secondary education, then you forfeit the government match money -- the feds get it back through a 20% surtax on withdrawals. But, you'll have the option of rolling over remaining funds into your RRSP, if you have room." }, { "docid": "95243", "title": "", "text": "So the key factor here, IMHO, is the amount we are talking about. $2K is just not a lot of money. If you lose every penny, you can recover. On the other hand it is unlikely to make you wealthy. So if I was you I would buy in, more for the fun of it all. Now if it was a large amount of money that we were talking about it would be about a percentage of my net worth. For example, lets say the minimum was 20K, and you really believed in the company. If I had a net worth of less than 200K, I would not do it. If I had a larger net worth, I would consider it unless I was near retirement. So if I was 30, hand a net worth of 300K, I would probably invest as even if I did lose it all, I could recover. Having said all that it does not sound like you completely agree that the company will be profitable. So in that case, don't buy. Also, I have the opportunity to buy my own company's stock at a discount. However, I do not for two reasons. The first is I don't like investing in the company I work for. Secondly, they require you to hold the stock for a year." }, { "docid": "475108", "title": "", "text": "&gt; “If the [Black-Scholes] formula is applied to extended time periods….it can produce absurd results.” &gt; -Warren Buffett, 2008 Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders I will give your question more thought, and come back with a quantitative solution. It may be most fruitful to apply a backward-induction options pricing model with detailed scenario-based discounted cash flow valuation models supported by pro forma financial statement and investment analysis. Nonetheless, my initial reaction is inline with Warren Buffett's belief that in the long-run an assumption of the Black-Scholes options pricing model is invalid (see [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.1657&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf) and [here](http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/business/economics/faculty/kurt/OptionValuationBuffetCritique_123113.pdf)). The perceived invalid assumption is that the distribution of expected future stock prices is *not* log-normal in the long-run. This non-log-normal view is especially true for a single company stock. This invalid assumption results in over-valuation of options prices from Black-Scholes - which makes it much better to sell long-term options than to buy them if market participants are using Black-Scholes pricing models. Again, without having done the math yet, my gut tells me if the option seller is using Black-Sholes pricing for long-dated options, you would be best to avoid buying them as the prices will be inflated compared to an economic reality fair price." }, { "docid": "89161", "title": "", "text": "\"You ask about the difference between credit and debit, but that may be because you're missing something important. Regardless of credit/debit, there is value in carrying two different cards associated with two different accounts. The reason is simply that because of loss, fraud, or your own mismanagement, or even the bank's technical error, any card can become unusable for some period of time. Exactly how long depends what happened, but just sending you a new card can easily take more than one business day, which might well be longer than you'd like to go without access to any funds. In that situation you would be glad of a credit card, and you would equally be glad of a second debit card on a separate account. So if your question is \"\"I have one bank account with one debit card, and the only options I'm willing to contemplate are (a) do nothing or (b) take a credit card as well\"\", then the answer is yes, take a credit card as well, regardless of the pros or cons of credit vs debit. Even if you only use the credit card in the event that you drop your debit card down a drain. So what you can now consider is the pros and cons of a credit card vs managing an additional bank account -- unless you seriously hate one or more of the cons of credit cards, the credit card is likely to win. My bank has given me a debit card on a cash savings account, which is a little scary, but would cover most emergencies if I didn't have a credit card too. Of course the interest rate is rubbish and I sometimes empty my savings account into a better investment, so I don't use it as backup, but I could. Your final question \"\"can a merchant know if I give him number of debit or credit card\"\" is already asked: Can merchants tell the difference between a credit card and embossed debit card? Yes they can, and yes there are a few things you can't (or might prefer not to) do with debit. The same could even be said of Visa vs. Mastercard, leading to the conclusion that if you have a Visa debit you should look for a Mastercard credit. But that seems to be less of an issue as time goes on and almost everywhere in Europe apparently takes both or neither. If you travel a lot outside the EU then you might want to be loaded down with every card under the sun, and three different kinds of cash, but you'd already know that without asking ;-)\"" }, { "docid": "52185", "title": "", "text": "There are two sources for shares that employees buy through ESOPs. A company can simply buy the shares on the open market. The company must pay for the stock, but the employee then pays the company for the shares. If employees get a discount on the ESOP shares, the company would pay for that percentage directly. The company can choose to issue new shares. These new shares dilute the ownership of all the other current stockholders. While #2 is common when companies issue stock options, I'd be surprised to see it with an ESOP. In most cases, employees are limited in the amount of their salary they can devote towards the ESOP. If that limit is 10% and the discount that the employees get is 10%, the cost on a per-employee basis would only be 1% of that employees salary, which is a small expense." }, { "docid": "453524", "title": "", "text": "This is what is called a Structured Product. The linked page gives an overview of the relative pros and cons. They tend to hold the bulk of funds in bonds and then used equity index futures and other derivatives to match returns on the S&P, or other indices tracked. All combine to provide the downside protection. Note that your mother did not receive the dividends paid by the constituent companies. She only received the capital return. Here is a link to Citigroup (Europe) current structured product offerings. Here is a link to Fidelity's current offerings of structured products. Here is Investopedia's article detailing the pitfalls. The popularity of these products appears to be on the wane, having been heavily promoted and sold by the providers at the time your mother invested. Most of these products only provide 100% protection of capital if the market does not fall by a specified amount, either in successive reporting periods or over the life of the product. There are almost as many terms and conditions imposed on the protection as there are structured products available. I have no personal experience buying this type of product, preferring to have the option to trade and receive dividend income." }, { "docid": "551485", "title": "", "text": "This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due." }, { "docid": "281572", "title": "", "text": "That is where I think Walmart comes in to buy up a business like this. With their network of stores and the insane buying power they have the can push a good solid quality that the middle class American wants and do it very cheaply. I feel this will be their main combat against Amazon buying whole foods. Currently Walmart makes more on grocery sales than anything else as a hole and will continue to do so because of what and how they are doing it. Walmart is sneaky as fuck when it comes to what they can do and how they can do it. Even Walmart buying up Advanced Auto Parts is a solid counter move to Amazon buying Whole Foods...the next step is buying a Blue Apron type business... and with how Blue Apron is doing financially and given their name they are entering buy off territory. In my humble albeit non pro status in the stock market my 3 buys are Snap Chat, GoPro, and Walmart for long term retire and never have to worry about money again companies. I am by no means an expert but I have never come close to losing money in the stock market and do a good amount of research before I invest. Snapchat is my top 1 tbh. Sorry for going on a tangent lol" }, { "docid": "494616", "title": "", "text": "There are some who argue that you should lease an electric car. These factors are in addition to all the normal pros and cons of leasing vs. buying. The technology is still new and is advancing rapidly. In 2-3 years, the newer model may have significantly improved features, range, and efficiency, as well as lower prices. If you are the type of person to upgrade regularly to the latest and greatest, leasing can make it a smoother transition. It is hard to predict the depreciation of the vehicles. This is both because of the above factors, but also because these kinds of cars are newer and so the statistical models used to predict their future values are less refined. The models for predicting gas car prices have been honed for decades. EV Manufacturers have in the past made some mistakes in their residual value estimations. When you lease a car, you get essentially an option to buy the car at the future predicted residual value. If, at the end of the lease, the market value of the car is higher than the residual value, you can purchase the car at the predetermined price, making yourself some extra money. If the value is lower than the residual, you can return the car or renegotiate. I know a relatively large number of electric vehicle owners. Most or all of the ones who got the vehicle new leased it. The rest bought used vehicles coming off lease, which can also be a good deal." }, { "docid": "67625", "title": "", "text": "It appears your company is offering roughly a 25% discount on its shares. I start there as a basis to give you a perspective on what the 30% matching offer means to you in terms of value. Since you are asking for things to consider not whether to do it, below are a few considerations (there may be others) in general you should think about your sources of income. if this company is your only source of income, it is more prudent to make your investment in their shares a smaller portion of your overall investment/savings strategy. what is the holding period for the shares you purchase. some companies institute a holding period or hold duration which restricts when you can sell the shares. Generally, the shorter the duration period the less risk there is for you. So if you can buy the shares and immediately sell the shares that represents the least amount of relative risk. what are the tax implications for shares offered at such a discount. this may be something you will need to consult a tax adviser to get a better understanding. your company should also be able to provide a reasonable interpretation of the tax consequences for the offering as well. is the stock you are buying liquid. liquid, in this case, is just a fancy term for asking how many shares trade in a public market daily. if it is a very liquid stock you can have some confidence that you may be able to sell out of your shares when you need. personally, i would review the company's financial statements and public statements to investors to get a better understanding of their competitive positioning, market size and prospects for profitability and growth. given you are a novice at this it may be good idea to solicit the opinion of your colleagues at work and others who have insight on the financial performance of the company. you should consider other investment options as well. since this seems to be your first foray into investing you should consider diversifying your savings into a few investments areas (such as big market indices which typically should be less volatile). last, there is always the chance that your company could fail. Companies like Enron, Lehman Brothers and many others that were much smaller than those two examples have failed in the past. only you can gauge your tolerance for risk. As a young investor, the best place to start is to use index funds which track a broader universe of stocks or bonds as the first step in building an investment portfolio. once you own a good set of index funds you can diversify with smaller investments." }, { "docid": "564648", "title": "", "text": "Your NRI friend can use normal Banks or specialized remittance services. There are questions on this website that give pro's and con's. From Indian tax point of you, you have received a gift from friend and as such it falls under Gift Tax act. Any amount upto Rs 50,000 is tax free. Anything above it is taxable as per tax bracket." }, { "docid": "28942", "title": "", "text": "Mint.com—Easy solution to provide insight into finances. Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "301609", "title": "", "text": "KMyMoney Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "525576", "title": "", "text": "There are quite a few ways; each has its own pro's and con's SWIFT: Fast reliable payment. Higher Charges. If payments are large and routine the charges can be less Remittance Service: Ideal for person to person transfer. Can be used by Companies to transfer to Individuals. Less Faster compared to SWIFT. Quite Cheaper compared to SWIFT Check's: Long time is getting it cleared in India. Typically around month. Quite Cheap. Almost NIL charges." }, { "docid": "390751", "title": "", "text": "\"A REIT is a real estate investment trust. It is a company that derives most of its gross income from and holds most of its assets in real estate investments, which, in this case, include either real property, mortgages, or both. They provide a way for investors to get broad exposure in a real estate market without going to buy a bunch of properties themselves. It also provides diversification within the real estate segment since REITs will often (but not necessarily) have either way more properties than an individual could get or have very large properties (like a few resorts) that would be too expensive for any one investor. By law, they must pay at least 90% of their taxable income as dividends to investors, so they typically have a good dividend rate (possibly but not necessarily) at the expense of growth of the stock price. Some of those dividends may be tax advantaged and some will not. An MLP is a master limited partnership. These trade on the exchange like corporations, but they are not corporations. (Although often used in common language as synonyms, corporation and company are not the same thing. Corporation is one way to organize a company under the law.) They are partnerships, and when you buy a share you become a partner in the company. This is an alternative form of ownership to being a shareholding. In this case you are a limited partner, which means that you have limited liability as with stock. The shares may appreciate or not, just like a stock, and you can generally sell them back to the market for a capital gain or loss under the same rules as a stock. The main difference here from a practical point of view is taxes: Partnerships (of any type) do no pay tax - Instead their income and costs are passed to the individual partners, who must then include it on their personal returns (Form 1040, Schedule E). The partnership will send each shareholder a Schedule K-1 form at tax time. This means you may have \"\"phantom income\"\" that is taxable even though cash never flowed through your hands since you'll have to account for the income of the partnership. Many partnerships mitigate this by making cash distributions during the year so that the partners do actually see the cash, but this is not required. On the other hand, if it does happen, it's often characterized as a return of capital, which is not taxable in the year that you receive it. A return of capital reduces your cost basis in the partnership and will eventually result in a larger capital gain when you sell your shares. As with any investment, there are pros and cons to each investment type. Of the two, the MLP is probably less like a \"\"regular\"\" stock since getting the Schedule K-1 may require some extra work at tax time, especially if you've never seen one before. On the other hand, that may be worth it to you if you can find one that's appreciating in value and still returning capital at a good rate since this could be a \"\"best of everything\"\" situation where you defer tax and - when you eventually do pay, you pay at favorable capital gains rates - but still manage to get your cash back in hand before you sell. (In case not clear, my comments about tax are specific to the US. No idea how this is treated elsewhere.) By real world example, I guess you meant a few tickers in each category? You can find whole lists online. I just did a quick search (\"\"list of MLP\"\" and \"\"list of REIT\"\"), found a list, and have provided the top few off of the first list that I found. The lists were alphabetical by company name, so there's no explicit or implicit endorsement of these particular investments. Examples of REIT: Examples of MLP:\"" }, { "docid": "103439", "title": "", "text": "The main problem I have with Uber is they represent themselves differently in some contexts than others. To most customers, Uber is Uber, not the individual who is driving. Conceptually, individuals not being able to shield themselves behind a corporation is an interesting idea, with both pros and cons." }, { "docid": "474006", "title": "", "text": "If you have a long enough time horizon, investing in the stock market while in a bad economy can turn out to be a very smart decision. If you need access to your capital in the short-term, 1-2 years, then it is probably a bad decision. If you have the ability to ride out the next few years, then you may be buying securities at an extremely low valuation. Take AAPL and MSFT for example. These are both technology stocks, which is by far the hottest sector in the economy now, and you can buy both of these companies for less than 13x earnings. Historically, you would have had to pay 20x or higher for high tech growth companies, but today you can buy these stocks at discounted valuations. Now AAPL may have a large market capitalization and a high stock price, but the simple fact is they are growing their earnings very quickly, they have best in class management, and they have $100 billion in cash and $50 billion in annual cash flow generation and you can buy the stock for a historically low multiple." }, { "docid": "512827", "title": "", "text": "As with most strategies there are pros and cons associated with this approach: Advantages of using LEAPS: Disadvantages of using LEAPS: Read more about it in great detail on my blog: http://www.thebluecollarinvestor.com/leaps-and-covered-call-writing-2/" }, { "docid": "344740", "title": "", "text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "197151", "title": "", "text": "Assuming US. The only con that I know of is that hassle factor. You have to remember to sell when you get the new shares, and your taxes become a bit more complicated; the discount that you receive is taxed as ordinary income, and then any change in the price of the stock between when you receive it and you sell it will be considered a capital gain or loss. It's not hard to account for properly if you keep good records." } ]

[ { "docid": "272008", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes when I place an order with my broker they send it out to the exchange. - For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? I may be mistaken(I highly doubt it), but from my understanding you cannot trade directly through an exchange as a retail investor. BATS allows membership but it is only for Your firm must be a registered broker-dealer, registered with a Self Regulatory Organization (SRO) and connected with a clearing firm. No apple (aapl) is listed on the NASDAQ so trades go through the NASDAQ for aapl. Caterpillar Inc (CAT) is listed on the NYSE so trades go through the NYSE. The exchange you trade on is dependent on the security, if it is listed on the NYSE then you trade on the NYSE. As a regular investor you will be going through a broker. When looking to purchase a security it is more important to know about the company and less important to know what exchange it is listed on. Since there are rules a company must comply with for it to be listed on certain exchanges, it does make a difference but that is more the case when speaking about a stock listed Over the Counter(OTC) or NYSE. It is not important when asking NYSE or NASDAQ? Selecting a broker is something that's dependent on your needs. You should ask your self, \"\"whats important to me?\"\", \"\"Do I want apps(IE: iPhone, android)?\"\" \"\"Do I need fancy trading tools?\"\". Generally all the brokers you listed will most likely do the trick for you. Some review sites: Brokerage Review Online Broker Review 2012 Barron's 2012 Online Broker Review\"" }, { "docid": "246547", "title": "", "text": "As far as the spam mail goes, I own a rental (in Connecticut) and live in Massachusetts, I get very little mail related to this property. I view this as a non-compelling reason. Your other reasons pick up quick in value. The protection from the rest of your assets is helpful, and the one con for most is the inability to get a loan with such a structure, but in your case, a cash purchase is mentioned. I don't know what the fees are to start an LLC, but overall, I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Yes, your Pro 4 looks good, an ongoing business with a track record will help the next purchase." }, { "docid": "224320", "title": "", "text": "You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money?" }, { "docid": "344740", "title": "", "text": "\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"" }, { "docid": "374518", "title": "", "text": "\"Unfortunately I don't think any of the online personal finance applications will do what you're asking. Most (if not all) online person finance software uses a combination of partnerships with the banks themselves and \"\"screen scraping\"\" to import your data. This simplifies things for the user but is typically limited to whenever the service was activated. Online personal finance software is still relatively young and doesn't offer the depth available in a desktop application (yet). If you are unwilling to part with historical data you spent years accumulating you are better off with a desktop application. Online Personal Finance Software Pros Cons Desktop Personal Finance Software Pros Cons In my humble opinion the personal finance software industry really needs a hybrid approach. A desktop application that is synchronized with a website. Offering the stability and tools of a desktop application with the availability of a web application.\"" }, { "docid": "453524", "title": "", "text": "This is what is called a Structured Product. The linked page gives an overview of the relative pros and cons. They tend to hold the bulk of funds in bonds and then used equity index futures and other derivatives to match returns on the S&P, or other indices tracked. All combine to provide the downside protection. Note that your mother did not receive the dividends paid by the constituent companies. She only received the capital return. Here is a link to Citigroup (Europe) current structured product offerings. Here is a link to Fidelity's current offerings of structured products. Here is Investopedia's article detailing the pitfalls. The popularity of these products appears to be on the wane, having been heavily promoted and sold by the providers at the time your mother invested. Most of these products only provide 100% protection of capital if the market does not fall by a specified amount, either in successive reporting periods or over the life of the product. There are almost as many terms and conditions imposed on the protection as there are structured products available. I have no personal experience buying this type of product, preferring to have the option to trade and receive dividend income." }, { "docid": "390751", "title": "", "text": "\"A REIT is a real estate investment trust. It is a company that derives most of its gross income from and holds most of its assets in real estate investments, which, in this case, include either real property, mortgages, or both. They provide a way for investors to get broad exposure in a real estate market without going to buy a bunch of properties themselves. It also provides diversification within the real estate segment since REITs will often (but not necessarily) have either way more properties than an individual could get or have very large properties (like a few resorts) that would be too expensive for any one investor. By law, they must pay at least 90% of their taxable income as dividends to investors, so they typically have a good dividend rate (possibly but not necessarily) at the expense of growth of the stock price. Some of those dividends may be tax advantaged and some will not. An MLP is a master limited partnership. These trade on the exchange like corporations, but they are not corporations. (Although often used in common language as synonyms, corporation and company are not the same thing. Corporation is one way to organize a company under the law.) They are partnerships, and when you buy a share you become a partner in the company. This is an alternative form of ownership to being a shareholding. In this case you are a limited partner, which means that you have limited liability as with stock. The shares may appreciate or not, just like a stock, and you can generally sell them back to the market for a capital gain or loss under the same rules as a stock. The main difference here from a practical point of view is taxes: Partnerships (of any type) do no pay tax - Instead their income and costs are passed to the individual partners, who must then include it on their personal returns (Form 1040, Schedule E). The partnership will send each shareholder a Schedule K-1 form at tax time. This means you may have \"\"phantom income\"\" that is taxable even though cash never flowed through your hands since you'll have to account for the income of the partnership. Many partnerships mitigate this by making cash distributions during the year so that the partners do actually see the cash, but this is not required. On the other hand, if it does happen, it's often characterized as a return of capital, which is not taxable in the year that you receive it. A return of capital reduces your cost basis in the partnership and will eventually result in a larger capital gain when you sell your shares. As with any investment, there are pros and cons to each investment type. Of the two, the MLP is probably less like a \"\"regular\"\" stock since getting the Schedule K-1 may require some extra work at tax time, especially if you've never seen one before. On the other hand, that may be worth it to you if you can find one that's appreciating in value and still returning capital at a good rate since this could be a \"\"best of everything\"\" situation where you defer tax and - when you eventually do pay, you pay at favorable capital gains rates - but still manage to get your cash back in hand before you sell. (In case not clear, my comments about tax are specific to the US. No idea how this is treated elsewhere.) By real world example, I guess you meant a few tickers in each category? You can find whole lists online. I just did a quick search (\"\"list of MLP\"\" and \"\"list of REIT\"\"), found a list, and have provided the top few off of the first list that I found. The lists were alphabetical by company name, so there's no explicit or implicit endorsement of these particular investments. Examples of REIT: Examples of MLP:\"" }, { "docid": "141120", "title": "", "text": "You can't control the number of special interest groups. You can't control their stubbornness, animosity, or lack of foresight. What you can do is limit how and when special interest groups can press their views. Create a new team whose whole job is to field lobbying before it gets to congress. They see all the new bills, etc. and boil them down to simple terms, pros, and cons, before presenting them to congress. The final version must also be signed off on by the lobbying party before it is presented. You need a second party in this group: The Devil's Advocates - a group that is REQUIRED to argue against EVERY proposal. The whole reason for this group is to ensure that no proposal passes without contest. You need a group whose whole goal is to identify the impact of each proposal, and return the findings to fielders. They also require a devil's advocate. When the final proposal is signed off on, then the fielding group presents it to congress, not the lobbyists or their supporters. The funding for these groups comes directly from the lobbyists, who must finance their bill through congress, unless special exception is made. If a ton of special interest groups want to get their form in, they must wait their turn in line. The less work the fielding group has to do to clean up their request, validate it, and discover the pros and cons, the faster the lobby request will go through. This is just a rough idea off the top of my head. What are the issues you see with it?" }, { "docid": "380474", "title": "", "text": "GnuCash—Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances. Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "216356", "title": "", "text": "The loan is private, so the business is more of a red-herring. The fact that you're closing it and lost a lot of money explains the loan, but is rather irrelevant otherwise as the loan is personal. Do consider potential tax benefits on writing off a loss, talk to a local tax adviser on that. Pros: Cons: I'm sure there are more considerations, of course, and I'm not familiar with the Canadian social safety nets to understand how much of a damage con #1 would be." }, { "docid": "466711", "title": "", "text": "Because buying at discount provides a considerable safety of margin -- it increases the likelihood of profiting. The margin serves to cushion future adverse price movement. Why is so much effort made to get a small percentage off an investment, if one is then willing to let the investment drop another 20% or more with the reason of being in it for the long term? Nobody can predict the stock price. Now if a long term investor happens to buy some stocks and the market crashes the next day, he could afford to wait for the stock prices to bounce back. Why should he sells immediately to incur a definite loss, should he has confidence in the underlying companies to recover eventually? One can choose to buy wisely, but the market fluctuation is out of his/her control. Wouldn't you agree that he/she should spend much efforts on something that can be controlled?" }, { "docid": "484825", "title": "", "text": "Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)" }, { "docid": "80272", "title": "", "text": "I'm currently using Halifax. Pros: Cons: I'm might start using TD Waterhouse in future, as they claim to have no admin charge." }, { "docid": "149306", "title": "", "text": "This is allowed somewhat infrequently. You can often purchase stocks through DRIPs which might have little or no commission. For example Duke Energy (DUK) runs their plan internally, so you are buying from them directly. There is no setup fee, or reinvestment fee. There is a fee to sell. Other companies might have someone else manage the DRIP but might subsidize some transaction costs giving you low cost to invest. Often DRIPs charge relatively large amounts to sell and they are not very nimble if trading is what you are after. You can also go to work for a company, and often they allow you to buy stock from them at a discount (around 15% discount is common). You can use a discount broker as well. TradeKing, which is not the lowest cost broker, allows buys and sells at 4.95 per trade. If trading 100 shares that is similar in cost to the DUK DRIP." }, { "docid": "474171", "title": "", "text": "Of course you do. You can sell it, wreck it, do whatever you want with it. Of course, some things may void warranty, or whatever, but since you do in fact own the vehicle, it is technically yours to do with as you please. Did you know that you can bore the engine of a car to increase performance? Not saying you should, there are lots of pros and cons there, and it requires an individual with specialized knowledge to do it, who you will have to pay for his service, but it is doable. Should you be upset that this wasn't already done by the manufacturer? Did you know that lots of vehicles are equipped with gps functionality? If your car can display a compass, there is a decent chance that you already have the basics of what you need to set up gps in the vehicle. Should you be upset that your vehicle doesn't have gps? But you can't boil it down that far. Well, I suppose you can, but it makes everything cost more for everyone. When you buy a Tesla, you aren't just buying a car. You are buying into the company. They make updates, fix programming issues, etc. and this requires access. They chose to market their vehicles differently, and so they sell them differently. Alternatively, they could have 2 separate assembly lines, one for the 60 (discontinued) and one for the 75. Now this will equate to both cars costing significantly more than they currently do, but hey, at least you have the right battery, right?" }, { "docid": "525576", "title": "", "text": "There are quite a few ways; each has its own pro's and con's SWIFT: Fast reliable payment. Higher Charges. If payments are large and routine the charges can be less Remittance Service: Ideal for person to person transfer. Can be used by Companies to transfer to Individuals. Less Faster compared to SWIFT. Quite Cheaper compared to SWIFT Check's: Long time is getting it cleared in India. Typically around month. Quite Cheap. Almost NIL charges." }, { "docid": "251376", "title": "", "text": "It takes a long time to bring these sort of cases to trial because of their complexity and the large sums of money that companies have to delay the process. It takes political will to go after these types of crimes. From the politics to building a case, it just seems to me that five years is a very short time frame. I don't know how or why it was set at five years, but due to what we know now, it might be a better idea to extend the statue, if the pros outweigh the cons." }, { "docid": "451737", "title": "", "text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"" }, { "docid": "564648", "title": "", "text": "Your NRI friend can use normal Banks or specialized remittance services. There are questions on this website that give pro's and con's. From Indian tax point of you, you have received a gift from friend and as such it falls under Gift Tax act. Any amount upto Rs 50,000 is tax free. Anything above it is taxable as per tax bracket." } ]

[ { "docid": "203139", "title": "", "text": "One major benefit to being able to buy discounted company stock is that you can sell in-the-money covered calls and potentially make more than you would selling at strike." } ]

[ { "docid": "83238", "title": "", "text": "\"Two types of people: (1) Suckers (2) People who feel that investment advisors/brokers make too little money and want to help out by paying insane commissions. Think I'm kidding. Check out this article: \"\"Variable Annuity Pros and Cons\"\" Seriously, for 99% of us, they are a raw deal for everyone except the person selling them.\"" }, { "docid": "319568", "title": "", "text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"" }, { "docid": "224320", "title": "", "text": "You need a blog, or a thread of your own. I want to learn about this, and you appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough in your explanations. Would it be possible for you to make a thread, or reply, or pm explaining some of the pro's and cons of fiat money?" }, { "docid": "532139", "title": "", "text": "The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate." }, { "docid": "474171", "title": "", "text": "Of course you do. You can sell it, wreck it, do whatever you want with it. Of course, some things may void warranty, or whatever, but since you do in fact own the vehicle, it is technically yours to do with as you please. Did you know that you can bore the engine of a car to increase performance? Not saying you should, there are lots of pros and cons there, and it requires an individual with specialized knowledge to do it, who you will have to pay for his service, but it is doable. Should you be upset that this wasn't already done by the manufacturer? Did you know that lots of vehicles are equipped with gps functionality? If your car can display a compass, there is a decent chance that you already have the basics of what you need to set up gps in the vehicle. Should you be upset that your vehicle doesn't have gps? But you can't boil it down that far. Well, I suppose you can, but it makes everything cost more for everyone. When you buy a Tesla, you aren't just buying a car. You are buying into the company. They make updates, fix programming issues, etc. and this requires access. They chose to market their vehicles differently, and so they sell them differently. Alternatively, they could have 2 separate assembly lines, one for the 60 (discontinued) and one for the 75. Now this will equate to both cars costing significantly more than they currently do, but hey, at least you have the right battery, right?" }, { "docid": "306834", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd put more money down and avoid financing. I personally don't think car debt is good debt and if you can't afford the car, you are better off with a cheaper car. Also, you should read up on the 0% offer before deciding to commit. Here's one article that is slightly dated, but discusses some pros and cons of 0% financing. My main point though is that 0% financing is not \"\"free\"\" and you need to consider the cost of that financing before making the purchase. Aside from the normal loan costs of having a monthly payment, possibly buying too much car by looking at monthly cost, etc., a 0% financing offer usually forces you to give the dealer/financing company any rebates that are due to you, in essence making the car cost more.\"" }, { "docid": "212162", "title": "", "text": "PROS: Price stability, confidence in the market, manipulation of money supply for direct monetary policy transmission, not having politicians conduct short sighted policy so they can get reelected, etc. CONS: No checks/balances, few people control of the largest economy in the world, not democratic" }, { "docid": "324273", "title": "", "text": "Excel Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "216356", "title": "", "text": "The loan is private, so the business is more of a red-herring. The fact that you're closing it and lost a lot of money explains the loan, but is rather irrelevant otherwise as the loan is personal. Do consider potential tax benefits on writing off a loss, talk to a local tax adviser on that. Pros: Cons: I'm sure there are more considerations, of course, and I'm not familiar with the Canadian social safety nets to understand how much of a damage con #1 would be." }, { "docid": "498378", "title": "", "text": "\"This depends strongly on what you mean by \"\"stock trading\"\". It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between \"\"trading\"\" and \"\"investing\"\", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that \"\"market rate of return\"\" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the \"\"great recession\"\" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want.\"" }, { "docid": "95243", "title": "", "text": "So the key factor here, IMHO, is the amount we are talking about. $2K is just not a lot of money. If you lose every penny, you can recover. On the other hand it is unlikely to make you wealthy. So if I was you I would buy in, more for the fun of it all. Now if it was a large amount of money that we were talking about it would be about a percentage of my net worth. For example, lets say the minimum was 20K, and you really believed in the company. If I had a net worth of less than 200K, I would not do it. If I had a larger net worth, I would consider it unless I was near retirement. So if I was 30, hand a net worth of 300K, I would probably invest as even if I did lose it all, I could recover. Having said all that it does not sound like you completely agree that the company will be profitable. So in that case, don't buy. Also, I have the opportunity to buy my own company's stock at a discount. However, I do not for two reasons. The first is I don't like investing in the company I work for. Secondly, they require you to hold the stock for a year." }, { "docid": "52185", "title": "", "text": "There are two sources for shares that employees buy through ESOPs. A company can simply buy the shares on the open market. The company must pay for the stock, but the employee then pays the company for the shares. If employees get a discount on the ESOP shares, the company would pay for that percentage directly. The company can choose to issue new shares. These new shares dilute the ownership of all the other current stockholders. While #2 is common when companies issue stock options, I'd be surprised to see it with an ESOP. In most cases, employees are limited in the amount of their salary they can devote towards the ESOP. If that limit is 10% and the discount that the employees get is 10%, the cost on a per-employee basis would only be 1% of that employees salary, which is a small expense." }, { "docid": "392124", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it really depends on what work/lifestyle you are looking for. I'm sure your more than capable of going down either route, but you should weigh up the pros and cons of each A consultant would be great, you'd be your own boss and you have overall say on how your business/career plans out, but be prepared to put in a hell of a lot of work to get it off the ground. Long hours, little time for social/family etc. But in the long run it'll pay off Employee, no worries about running your company, just turn up and perform your duties. You'll get the whole benefit package: healthcare/pension etc. You can probably go on expense paid training courses etc It depends, do you want to just be an employee working \"\"for the man\"\" or do you want to be \"\"the man\"\"? I wish you luck in whatever you do! :D\"" }, { "docid": "48718", "title": "", "text": "\"You can hold a wide variety of investments in your TFSA account, including stocks such as SLF. But if the stocks are being purchased via a company stock purchase plan, they are typically deposited in a regular margin account with a brokerage firm (a few companies may issue physical stock certificates but that is very rare these days). That account would not be a TFSA but you can perform what's called an \"\"in-kind\"\" transfer to move them into a TFSA that you open with either the same brokerage firm, or a different one. There will be a fee for the transfer - check with the brokerage that currently holds the stock to find out how costly that will be. Assuming the stock gained in value while you held it outside the TFSA, this transfer will result in capital gains tax that you'll have to pay when you file your taxes for the year in which the transfer occurs. The tax would be calculated by taking the value at time of transfer, minus the purchase price (or the market value at time of purchase, if your plan allowed you to buy it at a discounted price; the discounted amount will be automatically taxed by your employer). 50% of the capital gain is added to your annual income when calculating taxes owed. Normally when you sell a stock that has lost value, you can actually get a \"\"capital loss\"\" deduction that is used to offset gains that you made in other stocks, or redeemed against capital gains tax paid in previous years, or carried forward to apply against gains in future years. However, if the stock decreased in value and you transfer it, you are not eligible to claim a capital loss. I'm not sure why you said \"\"TFSA for a family member\"\", as you cannot directly contribute to someone else's TFSA account. You can give them a gift of money or stocks, which they can deposit in their TFSA account, but that involves that extra step of gifting, and the money/stocks become their property to do with as they please. Now that I've (hopefully) answered all your questions, let me offer you some advice, as someone who also participates in an employee stock purchase plan. Holding stock in the company that you work for is a bad idea. The reason is simple: if something terrible happens to the company, their stock will plummet and at the same time they may be forced to lay off many employees. So just at the time when you lose your job and might want to sell your stock, suddenly the value of your stocks has gone way down! So you really should sell your company shares at least once a year, and then use that money to invest in your TFSA account. You also don't want to put all your eggs in one basket - you should be spreading your investment among many companies, or better yet, buy index mutual funds or ETFs which hold all the companies in a certain index. There's lots of good info about index investing available at Canadian Couch Potato. The types of investments recommended there are all possible to purchase inside a TFSA account, to shelter the growth from being taxed. EDIT: Here is an article from MoneySense that talks about transferring stocks into a TFSA. It also mentions the importance of having a diversified portfolio!\"" }, { "docid": "301609", "title": "", "text": "KMyMoney Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "202140", "title": "", "text": "Is it worth saving HSA funds until retirement? Yes Are there pros and cons from a tax perspective? Mostly pros. This has all of the benefits of an IRA, but if you use it for medical expenses then you get to use the money tax free on the other side. Retirement seems to be the time you are most likely to need money for medical expenses. So why wouldn't you want to start saving tax free to cover those expenses? The cons are similar to other tax advantaged retirement accounts. If you withdraw before retirement time for non-medical purposes, you will pay penalties, but if you withdraw at retirement time, you will pay the same taxes you would pay on an IRA. I should note that I put my money where my mouth is and I max out my contribution to my HSA every year." }, { "docid": "229633", "title": "", "text": "There's a premium or discount for various stocks subject to influence by the alternatives available to investors, meaning investments are susceptible to the principle of supply and demand. This is easily seen when industries or business models get hot, and everybody wants a tech company, a social media company, or a solar company in his portfolio. You'll see bubbles like the dotcom bubble, the RE bubble, etc., as people start to think that the industry and not its performance are all that matters. The stock price of a desired industry or company is inflated beyond what might otherwise be expected, to accommodate the premium that the investment can demand. So if bonds become uniformly less attractive in terms of returns, and certain institutional investors are largely obliged to continue purchasing them anyway, then flexible investors will need to look elsewhere. As more people want to buy stocks, the price rises. Supply and demand is sometimes so elementary it feels nearly counter-intuitive, but it applies here as elsewhere." }, { "docid": "564648", "title": "", "text": "Your NRI friend can use normal Banks or specialized remittance services. There are questions on this website that give pro's and con's. From Indian tax point of you, you have received a gift from friend and as such it falls under Gift Tax act. Any amount upto Rs 50,000 is tax free. Anything above it is taxable as per tax bracket." }, { "docid": "393866", "title": "", "text": "\"Like many things, there are pros and cons to using credit cards. The other folks on here have discussed the pros and length, so I'll just quickly summarize: Convenience of not having to carry cash. Delay paying your bills for a month with no penalty. Build your credit rating for a time when you need a big loan, like buying a house or starting a business. Provide easy access to credit for emergencies or special situations. Many credit cards provide \"\"rewards\"\" of various sorts that can effectively reduce the cost of what you buy. Protection against fraud. Extended warranty, often up to one year Damage warranty, covering breakage that might be explicitly excluded from normal warranty. But there are also disadvantages: One of the advantages of credit cards -- easy access to credit -- can also be a disadvantage. If you pay with cash, then when you run out of cash, you are forced to stop buying. But when you pay with credit, you can fall into the trap of buying things that you can't afford. You tell yourself that you'll pay for it when you get that next paycheck, but by the time the paycheck arrives, you have bought more things that you can't afford. Then you have to start paying interest on your credit card purchases, so now you have less money left over to pay off the bills. Many, many people have gotten into a death spiral where they keep piling up credit card debt until they are barely able to pay the interest every month, never mind pay off the original bill. And yes, it's easy to say, \"\"Credit cards are great as long as you use them responsibly.\"\" That may well be true. But some people have great difficulty being responsible about it. If you find that having a credit card in your pocket leads you to just not worry about how much you buy or what it costs, because, hey, you'll just put it on the credit card, then you will likely end up in serious trouble. If, on the other hand, you are just as careful about what you buy whether you are paying cash or using credit, and you never put more on the credit card than you can pay off in full when the bill arrives, then you should be fine.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "569303", "title": "", "text": "I see another way of looking at this that hasn't been addressed yet. By offering the discount, the company is attempting to change your behavior into doing something irrational, that benefits them at your expense. The company hopes for one (or more) of the following psychological effects to happen to you: The proper thing to do, if you have enough capital to prevent margin calls, it to short-sell the stock at the same instant the price is set, thus locking in the profit. Eventually you can take possession of the shares and deliver them to offset the short -- hopefully before you get a margin call from the stock dropping." } ]

[ { "docid": "48718", "title": "", "text": "\"You can hold a wide variety of investments in your TFSA account, including stocks such as SLF. But if the stocks are being purchased via a company stock purchase plan, they are typically deposited in a regular margin account with a brokerage firm (a few companies may issue physical stock certificates but that is very rare these days). That account would not be a TFSA but you can perform what's called an \"\"in-kind\"\" transfer to move them into a TFSA that you open with either the same brokerage firm, or a different one. There will be a fee for the transfer - check with the brokerage that currently holds the stock to find out how costly that will be. Assuming the stock gained in value while you held it outside the TFSA, this transfer will result in capital gains tax that you'll have to pay when you file your taxes for the year in which the transfer occurs. The tax would be calculated by taking the value at time of transfer, minus the purchase price (or the market value at time of purchase, if your plan allowed you to buy it at a discounted price; the discounted amount will be automatically taxed by your employer). 50% of the capital gain is added to your annual income when calculating taxes owed. Normally when you sell a stock that has lost value, you can actually get a \"\"capital loss\"\" deduction that is used to offset gains that you made in other stocks, or redeemed against capital gains tax paid in previous years, or carried forward to apply against gains in future years. However, if the stock decreased in value and you transfer it, you are not eligible to claim a capital loss. I'm not sure why you said \"\"TFSA for a family member\"\", as you cannot directly contribute to someone else's TFSA account. You can give them a gift of money or stocks, which they can deposit in their TFSA account, but that involves that extra step of gifting, and the money/stocks become their property to do with as they please. Now that I've (hopefully) answered all your questions, let me offer you some advice, as someone who also participates in an employee stock purchase plan. Holding stock in the company that you work for is a bad idea. The reason is simple: if something terrible happens to the company, their stock will plummet and at the same time they may be forced to lay off many employees. So just at the time when you lose your job and might want to sell your stock, suddenly the value of your stocks has gone way down! So you really should sell your company shares at least once a year, and then use that money to invest in your TFSA account. You also don't want to put all your eggs in one basket - you should be spreading your investment among many companies, or better yet, buy index mutual funds or ETFs which hold all the companies in a certain index. There's lots of good info about index investing available at Canadian Couch Potato. The types of investments recommended there are all possible to purchase inside a TFSA account, to shelter the growth from being taxed. EDIT: Here is an article from MoneySense that talks about transferring stocks into a TFSA. It also mentions the importance of having a diversified portfolio!\"" }, { "docid": "209716", "title": "", "text": "Well, you can just say that 1 dollar contributed = one share and pay out dividends based on number of shares. That makes it pretty easy to make things fair based. There are pros and cons with this pooling approach." }, { "docid": "374518", "title": "", "text": "\"Unfortunately I don't think any of the online personal finance applications will do what you're asking. Most (if not all) online person finance software uses a combination of partnerships with the banks themselves and \"\"screen scraping\"\" to import your data. This simplifies things for the user but is typically limited to whenever the service was activated. Online personal finance software is still relatively young and doesn't offer the depth available in a desktop application (yet). If you are unwilling to part with historical data you spent years accumulating you are better off with a desktop application. Online Personal Finance Software Pros Cons Desktop Personal Finance Software Pros Cons In my humble opinion the personal finance software industry really needs a hybrid approach. A desktop application that is synchronized with a website. Offering the stability and tools of a desktop application with the availability of a web application.\"" }, { "docid": "340730", "title": "", "text": "When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well..." }, { "docid": "509608", "title": "", "text": "Since your child is 2, he has a long time horizon for investment. Assuming the savings will be used at age 19, that's 17 years. So, I think your best bet is to invest primarily in equities (i.e. stock-based funds) and inside an RESP. Why equities? Historically, equities have outperformed debt and cash over longer time periods. But, equities can be volatile in the short term. So, do purchase some fixed-income investments (e.g. 30% government bonds and money market funds), and do also spread your equity money around as well -- e.g. buy some international funds in addition to Canadian funds. Rebalance every year, and as your child gets closer to university age, start shifting some assets out of equities and into fixed-income, to reduce risk. You don't want the portfolio torpedoed by an economic crisis the year before the money is required! Next, why inside an RESP? Finally... what if your kid doesn't attend post-secondary education? First, you should probably get a Family RESP, not a Group RESP. Group RESPs have strict rules and may forfeit contributions if your kid doesn't attend. Have a look at Choosing the Right RESP and Canadian Capitalist's post The Pros and Cons of Group RESP Plans. In a Family plan, if none of your kids end up attending post-secondary education, then you forfeit the government match money -- the feds get it back through a 20% surtax on withdrawals. But, you'll have the option of rolling over remaining funds into your RRSP, if you have room." }, { "docid": "197151", "title": "", "text": "Assuming US. The only con that I know of is that hassle factor. You have to remember to sell when you get the new shares, and your taxes become a bit more complicated; the discount that you receive is taxed as ordinary income, and then any change in the price of the stock between when you receive it and you sell it will be considered a capital gain or loss. It's not hard to account for properly if you keep good records." }, { "docid": "90085", "title": "", "text": "Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) were heavily neutered by U.S. tax laws a few years ago, and many companies have cut them way back. While discounts of 15% were common a decade ago, now a company can only offer negligible discounts of 5% or less (tax free), and you can just as easily get that from fluctuations in the market. These are the features to look for to determine if the ESPP is even worth the effort: As for a cash value, if a plan has at least one of those features, (and you believe the stock has real long term value), you still have to determine how much of your money you can afford to divert into stock. If the discount is 5%, the company is paying you an extra 5% on the money you put into the plan." }, { "docid": "290385", "title": "", "text": "\"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"" }, { "docid": "569224", "title": "", "text": "What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future." }, { "docid": "257722", "title": "", "text": "\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \"\"discount\"\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\"" }, { "docid": "454584", "title": "", "text": "Having been both I see the pros and cons Employers: I personally hated all the paperwork. Government forms, legal protection, insurance, taxes, payroll, accounting, year ends, bank accounts, inventory tracking, expenses. The best bosses don't worry about the product, they worry about maintaining an environment that is good for the product. Good employees who are happy will make good products that you can sell to customers who are happy with your company. I personally went back to employee because I wanted to go home at night and forget about work. Employers cannot do that." }, { "docid": "202140", "title": "", "text": "Is it worth saving HSA funds until retirement? Yes Are there pros and cons from a tax perspective? Mostly pros. This has all of the benefits of an IRA, but if you use it for medical expenses then you get to use the money tax free on the other side. Retirement seems to be the time you are most likely to need money for medical expenses. So why wouldn't you want to start saving tax free to cover those expenses? The cons are similar to other tax advantaged retirement accounts. If you withdraw before retirement time for non-medical purposes, you will pay penalties, but if you withdraw at retirement time, you will pay the same taxes you would pay on an IRA. I should note that I put my money where my mouth is and I max out my contribution to my HSA every year." }, { "docid": "212162", "title": "", "text": "PROS: Price stability, confidence in the market, manipulation of money supply for direct monetary policy transmission, not having politicians conduct short sighted policy so they can get reelected, etc. CONS: No checks/balances, few people control of the largest economy in the world, not democratic" }, { "docid": "52185", "title": "", "text": "There are two sources for shares that employees buy through ESOPs. A company can simply buy the shares on the open market. The company must pay for the stock, but the employee then pays the company for the shares. If employees get a discount on the ESOP shares, the company would pay for that percentage directly. The company can choose to issue new shares. These new shares dilute the ownership of all the other current stockholders. While #2 is common when companies issue stock options, I'd be surprised to see it with an ESOP. In most cases, employees are limited in the amount of their salary they can devote towards the ESOP. If that limit is 10% and the discount that the employees get is 10%, the cost on a per-employee basis would only be 1% of that employees salary, which is a small expense." }, { "docid": "28942", "title": "", "text": "Mint.com—Easy solution to provide insight into finances. Pros: Cons:" }, { "docid": "475108", "title": "", "text": "&gt; “If the [Black-Scholes] formula is applied to extended time periods….it can produce absurd results.” &gt; -Warren Buffett, 2008 Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders I will give your question more thought, and come back with a quantitative solution. It may be most fruitful to apply a backward-induction options pricing model with detailed scenario-based discounted cash flow valuation models supported by pro forma financial statement and investment analysis. Nonetheless, my initial reaction is inline with Warren Buffett's belief that in the long-run an assumption of the Black-Scholes options pricing model is invalid (see [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.1657&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf) and [here](http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/business/economics/faculty/kurt/OptionValuationBuffetCritique_123113.pdf)). The perceived invalid assumption is that the distribution of expected future stock prices is *not* log-normal in the long-run. This non-log-normal view is especially true for a single company stock. This invalid assumption results in over-valuation of options prices from Black-Scholes - which makes it much better to sell long-term options than to buy them if market participants are using Black-Scholes pricing models. Again, without having done the math yet, my gut tells me if the option seller is using Black-Sholes pricing for long-dated options, you would be best to avoid buying them as the prices will be inflated compared to an economic reality fair price." }, { "docid": "149306", "title": "", "text": "This is allowed somewhat infrequently. You can often purchase stocks through DRIPs which might have little or no commission. For example Duke Energy (DUK) runs their plan internally, so you are buying from them directly. There is no setup fee, or reinvestment fee. There is a fee to sell. Other companies might have someone else manage the DRIP but might subsidize some transaction costs giving you low cost to invest. Often DRIPs charge relatively large amounts to sell and they are not very nimble if trading is what you are after. You can also go to work for a company, and often they allow you to buy stock from them at a discount (around 15% discount is common). You can use a discount broker as well. TradeKing, which is not the lowest cost broker, allows buys and sells at 4.95 per trade. If trading 100 shares that is similar in cost to the DUK DRIP." }, { "docid": "392124", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it really depends on what work/lifestyle you are looking for. I'm sure your more than capable of going down either route, but you should weigh up the pros and cons of each A consultant would be great, you'd be your own boss and you have overall say on how your business/career plans out, but be prepared to put in a hell of a lot of work to get it off the ground. Long hours, little time for social/family etc. But in the long run it'll pay off Employee, no worries about running your company, just turn up and perform your duties. You'll get the whole benefit package: healthcare/pension etc. You can probably go on expense paid training courses etc It depends, do you want to just be an employee working \"\"for the man\"\" or do you want to be \"\"the man\"\"? I wish you luck in whatever you do! :D\"" }, { "docid": "25817", "title": "", "text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "208165", "title": "", "text": "50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe..." } ]

[ { "docid": "228488", "title": "", "text": "You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)" }, { "docid": "277482", "title": "", "text": "At the time of writing, the Canadian dollar is worth roughly $0.75 U.S. Now, it's not possible for you to accurately predict what it'll be worth in, say, ten years. Maybe it'll be worth $0.50 U.S. Maybe $0.67. Maybe $1.00. Additionally, you can't know in advance if the Canadian economy will grow faster than the U.S., or slower, or by how much. Let's say you don't want to make a prediction. You just want to invest 50% of your money in Canadian stocks, 50% in U.S. Great. Do that, and don't worry about the current interest rates. Let's say that you do want to make a prediction. You are firmly of the belief that the Canadian dollar will be worth $1.00 U.S. dollar in approximately ten years. And furthermore, the Canadian economy and the U.S. economy will grow at roughly equal rates, in their local currencies. Great. You should put more of your money in Canadian stocks. Let's say that you want to make a prediction. The Canadian economy is tanking. It's going to be worth $0.67 or less in ten years. And on top of that, the U.S. economy is primed for growth. It's going to grow far faster than the Canadian economy. In that case, you want to invest mostly in U.S. stocks. Let's get more complicated. You think the Canadian dollar is going to recover, but boy, maple syrup futures are in trouble. The next decade is all about Micky Mouse. Now what should you do? Well, it depends on how fast the U.S. economy expands, compared to the currency difference. What should you do? I can't tell you that because I can't predict the future. What did I do? I bought 25% Canadian stocks, 25% U.S. stocks, 25% world stocks, and 25% Canadian bonds (roughly), back when the Canadian dollar was stronger. What am I doing now? Same thing. I don't know enough about the respective economies to judge. If I had a firm opinion, though, I'd certainly be happy to change my percentages a little. Not a lot, but a little." }, { "docid": "471472", "title": "", "text": "A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps." }, { "docid": "328477", "title": "", "text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"" }, { "docid": "331008", "title": "", "text": "\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"" }, { "docid": "408695", "title": "", "text": "its the best investment you can have specially with the company you work for and IPO, if i was you i would invest in more then just the minimum since its IPO. ask you your manager or supervisor how much are they buying the stocks for if they are doing it the go for it you'll be okay just keep track of it regular sometime you can invest more as time go by. You can get the idea by how much production your company is doing, if your company's profit going up chances are you need to buy more." }, { "docid": "55920", "title": "", "text": "You have plenty of good answers, but I want to add something that might help you grow your intuition on stocks. There are a lot of differences between the example I am going to give and how the stock market actually runs, but the basic concepts are the same. Lets say your friend asks you if he can borrow some money to start up a company, in exchange you will have some ownership in this company. You have essentially just bought yourself some stock. Now as your friend starts to grow, he is doing well, but he needs more cash to buy assets in order to grow the company more. He is forced with an option, either give you some of the profits, or buy these assets sooner. You decide you don't really need the money right now, and think he can do a lot better with spending the money to buy stuff. This is essentially the same as a company electing to not pay dividends, but instead invest into the future. You as a stock holder are fine with it since you know the money is going toward investing in the future. Even if you never get paid a dividend, as a company grows, you can then turn around and sell the stock to someone else for more money then you gave originally. Of course you always take the risk of having the company failing and loosing some if not all of your investment, but that is just the risk of the market." }, { "docid": "312445", "title": "", "text": "The best way I know of is to join an investment club. They club will act like a mutual fund, investing in stocks researched and selected by the group. Taking part in research and presenting results to the group for peer review is an excellent way to learn. You'll learn what is a good reason to invest and what isn't. You'll probably pick both winners and losers. The goal of participation is education. Some people learn how to invest and continue happily doing so. Others learn how to invest in single stocks and learn it is not for them." }, { "docid": "498378", "title": "", "text": "\"This depends strongly on what you mean by \"\"stock trading\"\". It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between \"\"trading\"\" and \"\"investing\"\", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that \"\"market rate of return\"\" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the \"\"great recession\"\" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want.\"" }, { "docid": "248799", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"" }, { "docid": "513281", "title": "", "text": "\"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"" }, { "docid": "512458", "title": "", "text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"" }, { "docid": "106104", "title": "", "text": "\"If you sold the stock for a profit, you will owe tax on that profit. Whether it is taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains depends on how long you held the stock before selling it. Presumably you're going to invest this money into mutual funds or something of that sort. Those may pay dividends which can be reinvested, and will grow in value (you hope) just as the individual stock shares would (you hope). Assuming the advice you've been given is at all reasonable, there's no need for buyer's remorse here; you're just changing your investing style to a different point on the risk-versus-return curve. (If you have to ask this question, I tend to agree that you should do more homework before playing with shares in individual companieS ... unless you're getting thess shares at employee discount, in which case you should still seriously consider selling them fairly quickly and reinvesting the money in a more structured manner. In a very real sense your job is itself an \"\"investment\"\" in your employer; if they ever get into trouble you don't want that to hit both your income and investments.)\"" }, { "docid": "115264", "title": "", "text": "I think that author does a disservice by writing such seemingly sensible articles without actually knowing how things work. If I didn’t know better, I would think this guy was teaching me something. It’s a shame he did not do research before he started writing. Let’s say you buy a classic car. You take super good care of it, all original, mint condition. You paid cash for it out of your savings. This is a balance sheet transaction that has nothing to do with income. You traded your cash asset for a classic car asset. Now let’s say this car is so rare and you keep it in such good condition that it gains value every year. Maybe it was worth $15k when you bought it, but this year it’s already worth $17k. Great job on making a great purchase! But is that $2k gain counted as income to you? No, it is not. The value of that asset on your balance sheet went up, but you did not make anything off of that increase in value because you have not sold it. If you had to pay taxes on the increase in value every year, those taxes would essentially force you to sell that car to pay the taxes just because you took care of it. Additionally, in the long term, no one would want to own anything, so this would destroy the value of everyone’s stuff, but I digress. In this example, amazon stock is the car. The author is seeing the increase in stock value adding to the balance sheets of the investors who bought the stock and confusing that with income. Back to our example, let’s say your car increased in value $2k a year for two years and you decide to sell it for $19k - now we are about to realize some income! Since you bought it for $15k and sold for $19k, you earned an income of the difference, or $4k. Your income wasn’t $19k, because you originally put $15k in cash into the car. That cash was already saved from income you made in the past, and it is not counted again as income in this sale. Because you did not work for this new car sale income, but it was derived from asset growth, the income is called capital gains. You invested your capital ($15k) into the asset (car), and that asset appreciated. When you sold it, you received capital (money) back in exchange for that asset. The capital you received is more than what you invested, which is to say you gained $4k of capital by investing in and then selling your asset (car). Because you held the car for two years, you qualify for lower long term capital gains tax rate on that $4k. Had you sold it after year 1, you would’ve paid your regular normal income tax rate on those capital gains. Either way, you owe the tax when you sell the asset, not when it appreciates. I’m sure you realize this already, but if we change the car to amazon stock in my story, this is exactly how it works with investors. The author gets several things wrong 1 - amazon profits are not passed through to shareholders for income tax purposes. If amazon paid dividends, those dividends would be taxed at payout at the long term capital gains rate, and they would be paid out of cash amazon has left after it already paid corporate taxes on profits. Amazon has decided they can add more value to investors by using cash to grow instead of paying dividends. When the investors sell the stock, they will owe capital gains on the growth of that stock. If amazon is correct that using cash to grow, then investors will effectively pay more when they sell the stock than they would pay today if dividends were paid. 2 - asset appreciation is not income. Those investors will realize the income when they sell the stock, and they will pay the tax then. 3 - he is missing the point entirely on why amazon runs a low profit or how business strategy translates into financials. Low prices are not a function of low profitability. Low profitability could be an adverse result of low pricing, but being low profit in order to be low price is a ridiculous and failing strategy. Amazon’s low pricing is a function of their unparalleled buying power, unparalleled consumer and product data, amazing logistics prowess, clever loyalty programs like amazon prime, and many other brilliant things they’ve done. Their low profitability is a function of their investment in things like amazon fresh, amazon Alexa, drone delivery, automated convenience stores, building out cloud computing infrastructure, and many other R&amp;D projects, $4 billion in original content spending for amazon prime video, and all kinds of expenditures years ahead of when they become profitable. By the time consumers want it, amazon already built it three years ago - this is the power of amazon. Sometimes multi billion dollar experiments fail, and all that money was for nothing. Sometimes they lose money for a few years and then become the infrastructure that runs a third of the internet. Amazon does not let fear of failure stop them, they invest in growth with their cash. This is how Bezos thinks - how do we build the future, not how can I avoid tax I do need to make a disclaimer here - there could be special tax treatment of classic cars that makes my example not work. Also classic cars may not appreciate in value. I don’t know anything about classic cars, I just picked a politically neutral thing to put in my story and made some assumptions to illustrate how capital gains work. My story is definitely how stocks work, and probably cars, but I just want to point out that I don’t know shit about car collecting." }, { "docid": "231195", "title": "", "text": "I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs." }, { "docid": "408123", "title": "", "text": "\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "561997", "title": "", "text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky." }, { "docid": "320320", "title": "", "text": "You can never depend ONLY on pension. You must get financial education and invest your money. I recommend you to read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham...it's the bible of Warren Buffet. Besides, you don't need to be a Billionaire for retiring and be happy. I recommend you to get education in ETFs. I quote The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham p. 131. According to Ibboston Associates, the leading financial research firm, if you had invested $12,000 in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index at the beginning of september 1929, 10 years later you would have had only $7,223 left. But if you had started with a paltry $100 and simply invested another $100 every single month, then by August 1939, your money would have grown to $15,571! That's the power of disciplined buying-even in the face of the Great Depression and the worst bear market of all time. You are still young to make even bolder investments. But seriously you can never depend ONLY on pension. You won't regret learning how to invest your money, it doesn't matter if it's in the stock market, real state market, whatever market... Knowing what to do with your money is priceless. I hope this helps. Happy profits!" }, { "docid": "212540", "title": "", "text": "\"So, you have $100k to invest, want a low-maintenance investment, and personal finance bores you to death. Oooohhh, investment companies are gonna love you. You'll hand them a wad of cash, and more or less say \"\"do what you want.\"\" You're making someone's day. (Just probably not yours.) Mutual fund companies make money off of you regardless of whether you make money or not. They don't care one bit how carefully you look at your investments. As long as the money is in their hands, they get their fee. If I had that much cash, I'd be looking around for a couple of distressed homes in good neighborhoods to buy as rentals. I could put down payments on two of them, lock in fixed 30-year mortgages at 4% (do you realize how stupid low that is?) and plop tenants in there. Lots of tax write-offs, cash flow, the works. It's a 10% return if you learn about it and do it correctly. Or, there have been a number of really great websites that were sold on Flippa.com that ran into five figures. You could probably pay those back in a year. But that requires some knowledge, too. Anything worthwhile requires learning, maintenance and effort. You'll have to research stocks, mutual funds, bonds, anything, if you want a better than average chance of getting worthwhile returns (that is, something that beats inflation, which savings accounts and CDs are unlikely to do). There is no magic bullet. If someone does manage to find a magic bullet, what happens? Everyone piles on, drives the price up, and the return goes down. Your thing might not be real estate, but what is your thing? What excites you (i.e., doesn't bore you to death)? There are lots of investments out there, but you'll get out of it what you put into it.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "474296", "title": "", "text": "\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "456389", "title": "", "text": "\"Scenario 1: Assume that you plan to keep the parking space for the rest of your life and collect the income from the rental. You say these spaces rent for $250 per month and there are fees of $1400 per year. Are there any other costs? Like would you be responsible for the cost of repaving at some point? But assuming that's covered in the $1400, the net profit is 250 x 12 - 1400 = $1600 per year. So now the question becomes, what other things could you invest your money in, and what sort of returns do those give? If, say, you have investments in the stock market that are generating a 10% annual return and you expect that rate of return to continue indefinitely, than if you pay a price that gives you a return of less than 10%, i.e. if you pay more than $16,000, then you would be better off to put the money in the stock market. That is, you should calculate the fair price \"\"backwards\"\": What return on investment is acceptable, and then what price would I have to pay to get that ROI? Oh, you should also consider what the \"\"occupancy rate\"\" on such parking spaces is. Is there enough demand that you can realistically expect to have it rented out 100% of the time? When one renter leaves, how long does it take to find another? And do you have any information on how often renters fail to pay the rent? I own a house that I rent out and I had two tenants in a row who failed to pay the rent, and the legal process to get them evicted takes months. I don't know what it takes to \"\"evict\"\" someone from a parking space. Scenario 2: You expect to collect rent on this space for some period of time, and then someday sell it. In that case, there's an additional piece of information you need: How much can you expect to get for this property when you sell it? This is almost surely highly speculative. But you could certainly look at past pricing trends. If you see that the value of a parking space in your area has been going up by, whatever, say 4% per year for the past 20 years, it's reasonable to plan on the assumption that this trend will continue. If it's been up and down and all over the place, you could be taking a real gamble. If you pay $30,000 for it today and when the time comes to sell the best you can get is $15,000, that's not so good. But if there is some reasonable consistent average rate of growth in value, you can add this to the expected rents. Like if you can expect it to grow in value by $1000 per year, then the return on your investment is the $1600 in rent plus $1000 in capital growth equals $2600. Then again do an ROI calculation based on potential returns from other investments.\"" }, { "docid": "513281", "title": "", "text": "\"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"" }, { "docid": "314977", "title": "", "text": "They're still behind on Model 3 numbers. China would be about taking all the money they've hemoraged to get where they are here and duplicate it over there, so while it's possibly a wildly lucrative market, it won't be for quite some time and after a lot more spending. They just trimmed the fat on their workforce, which is probably a good move, but so many at once says that they needed to cut spending. Once the 3 is cranking out faster and AP2.5 is getting updates, the stock will probably make a good run, but for now it's going to flounder about close to where it is." }, { "docid": "330694", "title": "", "text": "Depends on how you look at it. If it's a flaw in the specific methodology needed to count Twitter users, and if that flaw caused duplicate counts of some segments (or failure to remove duplicate instances if you prefer that), it could cause consistent overstatement. With that said, I'm sure they did it on purpose" }, { "docid": "331008", "title": "", "text": "\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"" }, { "docid": "312445", "title": "", "text": "The best way I know of is to join an investment club. They club will act like a mutual fund, investing in stocks researched and selected by the group. Taking part in research and presenting results to the group for peer review is an excellent way to learn. You'll learn what is a good reason to invest and what isn't. You'll probably pick both winners and losers. The goal of participation is education. Some people learn how to invest and continue happily doing so. Others learn how to invest in single stocks and learn it is not for them." }, { "docid": "451276", "title": "", "text": "How do you manage things like right of way? Duplication of services etc? Are we to assume that all actors will build in good faith and allow all to access these pieces of infrastructure. What happens if we clog up all the first few meters of underground with network cable and the one water company needs to upgrade piping to meet population needs? Who co-ordinates all these kinds of things to ensure it works well? How are these people paid? Where do their interests lie? In the event of a big highway project tearing through a neighborhood who represents the people of the neighborhood and ensures their interests are heard as well? What about public services that are in no way profitable for a company to run or manage? I would love to just let the perfect free market reign however it completely ignores all kinds of physical and logistic realities." }, { "docid": "231195", "title": "", "text": "I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs." }, { "docid": "20662", "title": "", "text": "\"I hope I'm misunderstanding your plan... you want to invest in a way that will make SO MUCH that you pay back all of the loan payments with investment gains? Like the answer I gave on the preceding question, and like @littleadv's comment/mhoran's answers... don't do this. No good will come of it. This strategy requires higher returns, but does not necessarily give you a better return. But because you asked the question again, let me specify what you're missing... I do think that learning is a good thing. It boils down to two very significant problems that you haven't addressed: (1) Where are you getting your monthly \"\"income\"\" from? (2) Realistic vs. Daydreaming--How big do any gains have to be and does that exist in the real world in a way that you can capture? In a nutshell, if my answer to the last question showed that it's crazy to invest and pay back out of your capital and income... since you're trying to keep your capital and only pay back with monthly gains, this one will require even higher and thus more unrealistic gains. The model you're implying: If that's what you mean with this model, (which I think you do), then here are my two very key questions again: How are you getting your monthly income? Financial investments (i.e. stocks or bonds) will have two components of value. One component of value is the stream of payments, such as a monthly dividend from stocks that pay those, or the interest payment from a bond. The other is the ability to resell a security to another investor, receiving back your capital. So... you either have to find Bonds//Dividend stocks that pay >52% returns tax-free each year, and pay this loan off with the payments. (Or higher returns to cover taxes, but these kinds of investments do not exist for you.) OR you can try to invest in something, pray that it goes up ≥4.323% per month and so that you can sell it, pay back your loan payment with the proceeds, and use the capital to buy your next investment... that will go up 4.323% per month, to turn and sell it again. The pros that do model this type of speculation go into much more depth than you are capable of. They build models that incorporate probabilities for rates of return based on historical data. They have better information, and have specialized in calculating this all out. They even have access to better investment opportunities (like pre-IPO Twitter or private notes). You just won't find the opportunities to make this happen, each month, for 24 months. (Again, you won't find them. They do not exist for you in as an investor in securities) Realistic vs. Daydreaming So... clearly I hope that by now I have convinced you that these would be the required returns. They simply aren't available to you. If they were, you would still run into obstacles with converting 'book' returns into physical money that you could repay the loans with, and then continuing that growth. And while I appreciate the notion that 'if I could just make the payments each month, I'd have $10,000 after 24 months!' I guarantee you that you'll be better off finding another way to target that same investment. Along the lines of what mhoran said, if you aim for a basic 401K or other similar investment account and target it into the S&P500, you might see returns of anywhere from -25% to +25% over the next 24 months... but if things went like they tend to average for the S&P500, it's more like ~7% annually. Check out a \"\"savings target calculator\"\" like this one from Bankrate.com and put in the numbers... if you can save about $390 a month you'll be at $10K in 24 months. It's not as fun as the other, but you can actually expect to achieve that. You will not find consistent >50% returns on your money annually.\"" }, { "docid": "133935", "title": "", "text": "\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \"\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\"\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\"" }, { "docid": "67804", "title": "", "text": "I never intended to get into a big debate on taxation. My point was that a buyback is the sane as a divided. Would you agree to that? Here's an interesting test. Does he have the same problem with dividend producing stocks? If he does then how else are firms supposed to give s return to investors? (Don't even think about saying through price appreciation because I'm sure you also have a rant for the drive for stock price.) This isn't a do we tax or not. That's overly broad for this piece. Also he isn't talking about taxing away profits but using taxes to cause businesses to make investments. Wouldn't you agree that if that extra factory was unproductive if it wouldnt have had an economical case to be invested in otherwise? Issuing taxes as a blunt tool to cause businesses to throw money at random projects is about the definition of misallocation. Can we agree to this, absent a taxation debate i generally avoid like the plague? You really are in a corner on how a company effectively passes a return to those who invested in them without subverting the whole pricing mechanism. Unless that is your point to do. Government control for all investments yeah!" }, { "docid": "148632", "title": "", "text": "Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads. Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years. Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary. These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing." }, { "docid": "146632", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\"" }, { "docid": "269406", "title": "", "text": "\"It includes whatever you want to do with your investment. At least initially, it's not so much a matter of calculating numbers as of introspective soul-searching. Identifying your investment objectives means asking yourself, \"\"Why do I want to invest?\"\" Then you gradually ask yourself more and more specific questions to narrow down your goals. (For instance, if your answer is something very general like \"\"To make money\"\", then you may start to ask yourself, \"\"How much money do I want?\"\", \"\"What will I want to use that money for?\"\", \"\"When will I want to use that money?\"\", etc.) Of course, not all objectives are realistic, so identifying objectives can also involve whittling down plans that are too grandiose. One thing that can be helpful is to first identify your financial objectives: that is, money you want to be able to have, and things you want to do with that money. Investment (in the sense of purchasing investment vehicles likes stocks or bonds) is only one way of achieving financial goals; other ways include working for a paycheck, starting your own business, etc. Once you identify your financial goals, you have a number of options for how to get that money, and you should consider how well suited each strategy is for each goal. For instance, for a financial goal like paying relatively small short-term expenses (e.g., your electric bill), investing would probably not be the first choice for how to do that, because: a) there may be easier ways to achieve that goal (e.g., ask for a raise, eat out less); and b) the kinds of investment that could achieve that goal may not be the best use of your money (e.g., because they have lower returns).\"" }, { "docid": "418551", "title": "", "text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"" }, { "docid": "495600", "title": "", "text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\"" }, { "docid": "257625", "title": "", "text": "\"This question and your other one indicate you're a bit unclear on how capital gains taxes work, so here's the deal: you buy an asset (like shares of stock or a mutual fund). You later sell it for more than you bought it for. You pay taxes on your profit: the difference between what you sold it for and what you bought it for. What matters is not the amount of money you \"\"withdraw\"\", but the prices at which assets are bought and sold. In fact, often you will be able to choose which individual shares you sell, which means you have some control over the tax you pay. For a simple example, suppose you buy 10 shares of stock for $100 each in January (an investment of $1000); we'll call these the \"\"early\"\" shares. The stock goes up to $200 in July, and you buy 10 more shares (investing an additional $2000); we'll call these the \"\"late\"\" shares. Then the stock drops to $150. Suppose you want $1500 in cash, so you are going to sell 10 shares. The 10 early shares you bought have increased in value, because you bought then for $100 but can now sell them for $150. The 10 late shares have decreased in value, because you bought them for $200 but can now only sell them for $150. If you choose to sell the early shares, you will have a capital gain of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $1000 purchase price), on which you may owe taxes. If you sell the late shares, you will have a capital loss of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $2000 purchase price is -$500), which you can potentially use to reduce your taxes. Or you could sell 5 of each and have no gain or loss (selling five early shares for $150 gives you a gain of $250, but selling five late shares for $150 gives you a loss of $250, and they cancel out). The point of all this is to say that the tax is not determined by the amount of cash you get, but by the difference between the sale price and the price you purchased for (known as the \"\"cost basis\"\"), and this in turn depends on which specific assets you sell. It is not enough to know the total amount you invested and the total gain. You need to know the specific cost basis (i.e., original purchase price) of the specific shares you're selling. (This is also the answer to your question about long-term versus short-term gains. It doesn't matter how much money you make on the sale. What matters is how long you hold the asset before selling it.) That said, many brokers will automatically sell your shares in a certain order unless you tell them otherwise (and some won't let you tell them otherwise). Often they will use the \"\"first in, first out\"\" rule, which means they will always sell the earliest-purchased shares first. To finally get to your specific question about Betterment, they have a page here that says they use a different method. Essentially, they try to sell your shares in a way that minimizes taxes. They do this by first selling shares that have a loss, and only then selling shares that have a gain. This basically means that if you want to cash out $X, and it is possible to do it in a way that incurs no tax liability, they will do that. What gets me very confused is if I continue to invest random amounts of money each month using Betterment, then I need to withdraw some cash, what are the tax implications. As my long answer above should indicate, there is no simple answer to this. The answer is \"\"it depends\"\". It depends on exactly when you bought the shares, exactly how much you paid for them, exactly when and how much the price rose or fell, and exactly how much you sell them for. Betterment is more or less saying \"\"Don't worry about any of this, trust us, we will handle everything so that your tax is minimized.\"\" A final note: if you really do want to track the details of your cost basis, Betterment may not be for you, because it is an automated platform that may do a lot of individual trades that a human wouldn't do, and that can make tracking the cost basis yourself very difficult. Almost the whole point of something like Betterment is that you are supposed to give them your money and forget about these details.\"" }, { "docid": "62552", "title": "", "text": "\"There are moral distinctions that can be drawn between gambling and investing in stocks. First and I think most important, in gambling you are trying to get money for nothing. You put $100 down on the roulette wheel and you hope to get $200 back. In investing you are not trying to get something for nothing. You are buying a piece of a hopefully profit-making company. You are giving this company the use of your money, and in exchange you get a share of the profits. That is, you are quite definitely giving something: the use of your money for a period of time. You invest $100 of your money, and you hope to see that grow by maybe $5 or $10 a year typically. You may get a sudden windfall, of course. You may buy a stock for $100 today and tomorrow it jumps to $200. But that's not the normal expectation. Second, gambling is a zero sum game. If I gamble and win $100, then someone else had to lose $100. Investing is not a zero sum game. If I buy $100 worth of stock in a company and that grows to $200, I have in a sense \"\"won\"\" $100. But no one has lost $100 to give me that money. The money is the result of the profit that the company made by selling a valuable product or service to customers. When I go to the grocery store and buy a dozen eggs for $2, some percentage of that goes to the stockholders in the grocery store, say 5 cents. So did I lose 5 cents by buying those eggs? No. To me, a dozen eggs are worth at least $2, or I wouldn't have bought them. I got exactly what I paid for. I didn't lose anything. Carrying that thought further, investing in the stock market puts money into businesses. It enables businesses to get started and to grow and expand. Assuming these are legitimate businesses, they then provide useful products and services to customers. Gambling does not provide useful products and services to anyone -- except to the extent that people enjoy the process of gambling, in which case you could say that it is equivalent to playing a video game or watching a movie. Third -- and these are all really related -- the whole goal of gambling is to take something from another person while giving him nothing in return. Again, if I buy a dozen eggs, I give the store my $2 (or whatever amount) and I get a dozen eggs in exchange. I got something of value and the store got something of value. We both walk away happy. But in gambling, my goal is that I will take your money and give you nothing in return. It is certainly true that buying stocks involves risk, and we sometimes use the word \"\"gamble\"\" to describe any risk. But if it is a sin to take a risk, then almost everything you do in life is a sin. When you cross the street, there is a risk that you will be hit by a car you didn't see. When you drink a glass of water, there is the risk that it is contaminated and will poison you. When you get married, there is a risk that your spouse will divorce you and break your heart. Etc. We are all sinners, we all sin every day, but we don't sin quite THAT much. :-) (BTW I don't think that gambling is a sin. Nothing in the Bible says that gambling is a sin. But I can comprehend the argument for it. I think gambling is foolish and I don't do it. My daughter works for a casino and she has often said how seeing people lose money in the casino regularly reminds her why it is stupid to gamble. Like she once commented on people who stand between two slot machines, feed them both coins and then pull the levers down at the same time, \"\"so that\"\", she said, \"\"they can lose their money twice as fast\"\".)\"" }, { "docid": "561997", "title": "", "text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky." } ]

[ { "docid": "312821", "title": "", "text": "\"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \"\"the market\"\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "17823", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"" }, { "docid": "451276", "title": "", "text": "How do you manage things like right of way? Duplication of services etc? Are we to assume that all actors will build in good faith and allow all to access these pieces of infrastructure. What happens if we clog up all the first few meters of underground with network cable and the one water company needs to upgrade piping to meet population needs? Who co-ordinates all these kinds of things to ensure it works well? How are these people paid? Where do their interests lie? In the event of a big highway project tearing through a neighborhood who represents the people of the neighborhood and ensures their interests are heard as well? What about public services that are in no way profitable for a company to run or manage? I would love to just let the perfect free market reign however it completely ignores all kinds of physical and logistic realities." }, { "docid": "283971", "title": "", "text": "Those are some very broad questions and I don't think I can answer them completely, but I will add what I can. Barron's Finance and Investment Handbook is the best reference book I have found. It provides a basic description/definition for every type of investment available. It covers stocks, preferred stocks, various forms of bonds as well as mortgage pools and other exotic instruments. It has a comprehensive dictionary of finance terms as well. I would definitely recommend getting it. The question about how people invest today is a huge one. There are people who simply put a monthly amount into a mutual fund and simply do that until retirement on one side and professional day traders who move in and out of stocks or commodities on a daily basis on the other." }, { "docid": "269384", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"" }, { "docid": "133935", "title": "", "text": "\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \"\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\"\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\"" }, { "docid": "3463", "title": "", "text": "You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems." }, { "docid": "55920", "title": "", "text": "You have plenty of good answers, but I want to add something that might help you grow your intuition on stocks. There are a lot of differences between the example I am going to give and how the stock market actually runs, but the basic concepts are the same. Lets say your friend asks you if he can borrow some money to start up a company, in exchange you will have some ownership in this company. You have essentially just bought yourself some stock. Now as your friend starts to grow, he is doing well, but he needs more cash to buy assets in order to grow the company more. He is forced with an option, either give you some of the profits, or buy these assets sooner. You decide you don't really need the money right now, and think he can do a lot better with spending the money to buy stuff. This is essentially the same as a company electing to not pay dividends, but instead invest into the future. You as a stock holder are fine with it since you know the money is going toward investing in the future. Even if you never get paid a dividend, as a company grows, you can then turn around and sell the stock to someone else for more money then you gave originally. Of course you always take the risk of having the company failing and loosing some if not all of your investment, but that is just the risk of the market." }, { "docid": "5188", "title": "", "text": "Basically you have 4 options: Use your cash to pay off the student loans. Put your cash in an interest-bearing savings account. Invest your cash, for example in the stock market. Spend your cash on fun stuff you want right now. The more you can avoid #4 the better it will be for you in the long term. But you're apparently wise enough that that wasn't included as an option in your question. To decide between 1, 2, and 3, the key questions are: What interest are you paying on the loan versus what return could you get on savings or investment? How much risk are you willing to take? How much cash do you need to keep on hand for unexpected expenses? What are the tax implications? Basically, if you are paying 2% interest on a loan, and you can get 3% interest on a savings account, then it makes sense to put the cash in a savings account rather than pay off the loan. You'll make more on the interest from the savings account than you'll pay on interest on the loan. If the best return you can get on a savings account is less than 2%, then you are better off to pay off the loan. However, you probably want to keep some cash reserve in case your car breaks down or you have a sudden large medical bill, etc. How much cash you keep depends on your lifestyle and how much risk you are comfortable with. I don't know what country you live in. At least here in the U.S., a savings account is extremely safe: even the bank goes bankrupt your money should be insured. You can probably get a much better return on your money by investing in the stock market, but then your returns are not guaranteed. You may even lose money. Personally I don't have a savings account. I put all my savings into fairly safe stocks, because savings accounts around here tend to pay about 1%, which is hardly worth even bothering. You also should consider tax implications. If you're a new grad maybe your income is low enough that your tax rates are low and this is a minor factor. But if you are in, say, a 25% marginal tax bracket, then the effective interest rate on the student loan would be more like 1.5%. That is, if you pay $20 in interest, the government will then take 25% of that off your taxes, so it's the equivalent of paying $15 in interest. Similarly a place to put your money that gives non-taxable interest -- like municipal bonds -- gives a better real rate of return than something with the same nominal rate but where the interest is taxable." }, { "docid": "212540", "title": "", "text": "\"So, you have $100k to invest, want a low-maintenance investment, and personal finance bores you to death. Oooohhh, investment companies are gonna love you. You'll hand them a wad of cash, and more or less say \"\"do what you want.\"\" You're making someone's day. (Just probably not yours.) Mutual fund companies make money off of you regardless of whether you make money or not. They don't care one bit how carefully you look at your investments. As long as the money is in their hands, they get their fee. If I had that much cash, I'd be looking around for a couple of distressed homes in good neighborhoods to buy as rentals. I could put down payments on two of them, lock in fixed 30-year mortgages at 4% (do you realize how stupid low that is?) and plop tenants in there. Lots of tax write-offs, cash flow, the works. It's a 10% return if you learn about it and do it correctly. Or, there have been a number of really great websites that were sold on Flippa.com that ran into five figures. You could probably pay those back in a year. But that requires some knowledge, too. Anything worthwhile requires learning, maintenance and effort. You'll have to research stocks, mutual funds, bonds, anything, if you want a better than average chance of getting worthwhile returns (that is, something that beats inflation, which savings accounts and CDs are unlikely to do). There is no magic bullet. If someone does manage to find a magic bullet, what happens? Everyone piles on, drives the price up, and the return goes down. Your thing might not be real estate, but what is your thing? What excites you (i.e., doesn't bore you to death)? There are lots of investments out there, but you'll get out of it what you put into it.\"" }, { "docid": "469519", "title": "", "text": "Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively." }, { "docid": "30887", "title": "", "text": "\"First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means. I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350. You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%. Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to \"\"invest.\"\" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it. An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation. However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond. As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017). Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months. If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a \"\"portfolio\"\" that's 50/50 stocks and \"\"bonds,\"\" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want). I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes.\"" }, { "docid": "330694", "title": "", "text": "Depends on how you look at it. If it's a flaw in the specific methodology needed to count Twitter users, and if that flaw caused duplicate counts of some segments (or failure to remove duplicate instances if you prefer that), it could cause consistent overstatement. With that said, I'm sure they did it on purpose" }, { "docid": "160170", "title": "", "text": "What explains the most of the future returns of a portfolio is the allocation between asset classes. In the long term, stock investments are almost certain to return more than any other kinds of investments. For 40+ years, I would choose a portfolio of 100% stocks. How to construct the portfolio, then? Diversification is the key. You should diversify in time (don't put a large sum of money into your stock portfolio immediately; if you have a large sum to invest, spread it around several years). You should diversify based on company size (invest in both large and small companies). You should also diversify internationally (don't invest in just US companies). If you prefer to pick individual stocks, 20 very carefully selected stocks may provide enough diversification if you keep diversification in mind during stock picking. However, careful stock picking cannot be expected to yield excess returns, and if you pick stocks manually, you need to rebalance your portfolio occasionally. Thus, if you're lazy, I would recommend a mutual fund, or many mutual funds if you have difficulty finding a low-cost one that is internationally diversified. The most important consideration is the cost. You cannot expect careful fund selection to yield excess returns before expenses. However, the expenses are certain costs, so prefer low-cost funds. Almost always this means picking index funds. Avoid funds that have a small number of stocks, because they typically invest only in the largest companies, which means you fail to get diversification in company size. So, instead of Euro STOXX 50, select STOXX 600 when investing to the European market. ETFs may have lower costs than traditional mutual funds, so keep ETFs in mind when selecting the mutual funds in which to invest. For international diversification, do not forget emerging markets. It is not excessive to invest e.g. 20% to emerging markets. Emerging markets have a higher risk but they also have a higher return. A portfolio that does not include emerging markets is not in my opinion well diversified. When getting close to retirement age, I would consider increasing the percentage of bonds in the portfolio. This should be done primarily by putting additional money to bonds instead of selling existing investments to avoid additional taxes (not sure if this applies to other taxation systems than the Finnish one). Bond investments are best made though low-cost mutual funds as well. Keep bond investments in your local currency and risk-free assets (i.e. select US government bonds). Whatever you do, remember that historical return is no guarantee of future return. Actually, the opposite may be true: there is a mean reversion law. If a particular investment has returned well in the past, it often means its price has gone up, making it more likely that the price goes down in the future. So don't select a fund based on its historical return; instead, select a fund based on low costs. However, I'm 99% certain that over a period of 40 years, stocks will return better than other investments. In addition to fund costs, taxes are the other certain thing that will be deducted from your returns. Research what options you have to reduce the taxes you need to pay. 401-K was explained in another answer; this may be a good option. Some things recommended in other answers that I would avoid:" }, { "docid": "167322", "title": "", "text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "277482", "title": "", "text": "At the time of writing, the Canadian dollar is worth roughly $0.75 U.S. Now, it's not possible for you to accurately predict what it'll be worth in, say, ten years. Maybe it'll be worth $0.50 U.S. Maybe $0.67. Maybe $1.00. Additionally, you can't know in advance if the Canadian economy will grow faster than the U.S., or slower, or by how much. Let's say you don't want to make a prediction. You just want to invest 50% of your money in Canadian stocks, 50% in U.S. Great. Do that, and don't worry about the current interest rates. Let's say that you do want to make a prediction. You are firmly of the belief that the Canadian dollar will be worth $1.00 U.S. dollar in approximately ten years. And furthermore, the Canadian economy and the U.S. economy will grow at roughly equal rates, in their local currencies. Great. You should put more of your money in Canadian stocks. Let's say that you want to make a prediction. The Canadian economy is tanking. It's going to be worth $0.67 or less in ten years. And on top of that, the U.S. economy is primed for growth. It's going to grow far faster than the Canadian economy. In that case, you want to invest mostly in U.S. stocks. Let's get more complicated. You think the Canadian dollar is going to recover, but boy, maple syrup futures are in trouble. The next decade is all about Micky Mouse. Now what should you do? Well, it depends on how fast the U.S. economy expands, compared to the currency difference. What should you do? I can't tell you that because I can't predict the future. What did I do? I bought 25% Canadian stocks, 25% U.S. stocks, 25% world stocks, and 25% Canadian bonds (roughly), back when the Canadian dollar was stronger. What am I doing now? Same thing. I don't know enough about the respective economies to judge. If I had a firm opinion, though, I'd certainly be happy to change my percentages a little. Not a lot, but a little." }, { "docid": "465819", "title": "", "text": "\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"" }, { "docid": "320587", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm 39 and have been investing since my very early 20's, and the advice I'd like to go back and give myself is the following: 1) Time is your friend. Compounding interest is a powerful force and is probably the most important factor to how much money you are going to wind up with in the end. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can. You have to run twice as hard to catch up if you start late, and you will still probably wind up with less in the end for the extra effort. 2) Don't invest 100% of your investment money It always bugged me to let my cash sit idle in an investment account because the niggling notion of inflation eating up my money and I felt I was wasting opportunity cost by not being fully invested in something. However, not having enough investable cash around to buy into the fire-sale dips in the market made me miss out on opportunities. 3) Diversify The dot.com bubble taught me this in a big, hairy painful way. I had this idea that as a technologist I really understood the tech bubble and fearlessly over-invested in Tech stocks. I just knew that I was on top of things as an \"\"industry insider\"\" and would know when to jump. Yeah. That didn't work out so well. I lost more than 6 figures, at least on paper. Diversification will attenuate the ups and downs somewhat and make the market a lot less scary in the long run. 4) Mind your expenses It took me years of paying huge full-service broker fees to realize that those clowns don't seem to do any better than anyone else at picking stocks. Even when they do, the transaction costs are a lead weight on your returns. The same holds true for mutual funds/ETFs. Shop for low expense ratios aggressively. It is really hard for a fund manager to consistently beat the indexes especially when you burden the returns with expense ratios that skim an extra 1% or so off the top. The expense ratio/broker fees are among the very few things that you can predict reliably when it comes to investments, take advantage of this knowledge. 5) Have an exit strategy for every investment People are emotional creatures. It is hard to be logical when you have skin in the game and most people aren't disciplined enough to just admit when they have a loser and bail out while they are in the red or conversely admit when they have a winner and take profits before the party is over. It helps to counteract this instinct to have an exit strategy for each investment you buy. That is, you will get out if it drops by x% or grows by y%. In fact, it is probably a good idea to just enter those sell limit orders right after you buy the investment so you don't have to convince yourself to press the eject button in the heat of a big move in the price of that investment. Don't try to predict tops or bottoms. They are extremely hard to guess and things often turn so fast that you can't act on them in time anyway. Get out of an investment when it has met your goal or is going to far in the wrong direction. If you find yourself saying \"\"It has to come back eventually\"\", slap yourself. When you are trying to decide whether to stay in the investment or bail, the most important question is \"\"If I had the current cash value of the stock instead of shares, would I buy it today?\"\" because essentially that is what you are doing when you stick with an investment. 6) Don't invest in fads When you are investing you become acutely sensitive to everyone's opinions on what investment is hot and what is not. If everyone is talking about a particular investment, avoid it. The more enthusiastic people are about it (even experts) the MORE you should avoid it. When everyone starts forming investment clubs at work and the stock market seems to be the preferred topic of conversation at every party you go to. Get out! I'm a big fan of contrarian investing. Take profits when it feels like all the momentum is going into the market, and buy in when everyone seems to be running for the doors.\"" }, { "docid": "314977", "title": "", "text": "They're still behind on Model 3 numbers. China would be about taking all the money they've hemoraged to get where they are here and duplicate it over there, so while it's possibly a wildly lucrative market, it won't be for quite some time and after a lot more spending. They just trimmed the fat on their workforce, which is probably a good move, but so many at once says that they needed to cut spending. Once the 3 is cranking out faster and AP2.5 is getting updates, the stock will probably make a good run, but for now it's going to flounder about close to where it is." }, { "docid": "348981", "title": "", "text": "Public/private keys are a method of having a secret that others can verify without being able to duplicate. They are used all over the internet and work really well. The biggest algorithm is RSA. Google can explain better than I can. The big issue with these methods are key management. Who makes the key, who knows the key, how do you recover a lost key etc." } ]

[ { "docid": "403025", "title": "", "text": "Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss. When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss." } ]

[ { "docid": "202552", "title": "", "text": "You should definately have a stop loss in place to manage your risk. For a time frame of 5 to 10 years I would be looking at a trailing stop loss of 20% to 25% off the recent high. Another type of stop you could use is a volatility stop. Here the more volatile the stock the larger the stop whilst the less volatile the stock the smaller the stop. You could use 3 or 4 x Weekly ATR (Average True Range) to achieve this. The reason you should always use a stop loss is because of what can happen and what did happen in 2008. Some stock markets have yet to fully recover from their peaks at the end of 2007, almost 9 years later. What would you do if you were planning to hold your positions for 5 years and then withdrawal your funds at the end of June 2021 for a particular purpose, and suddenly in February 2021 the market starts to fall. By the time June comes the market has fallen by over 50%, and you don't have enough funds available for the purpose you planned for. Instead if you were using a trailing stop loss you would manage to keep at least 75% of the peak of your portfolio. You could even spend 10 minutes each week to monitor your portfolio for warning signs that a downtrend may be around the corner and adjust your trailing stop to maybe 10% in these situations, protecting 90% of the peak of your portfolio. If the downtrend does not eventuate you can adjust your trailing back to a higher percentage. If you do get stopped out and shortly after the market recovers, then you can always buy back in or look for other stocks and ETFs to replace them. Sure you might lose a bit of profits if this happens, but it should always be part of your investment plan and risk management how you will handle these situation. If you are not using stop losses, risk management and money management you are essentially gambling. If you say I am going to buy these stocks and ETFs hold them for 10 years and then sell them, then you are just hoping to make gains - which is essentially gambling." }, { "docid": "183660", "title": "", "text": "I've had a card cloned 15 years ago and used to buy over 5k of goods in another country. So the inconvenience of having a card closed and re-issued is quite annoying even though the charges were reversed and I was made whole. But these days most CC fraud isn't from a card scanned by a waiter and cloned then used elsewhere. Mostly it is poorly secured databases or point of sale terminal malware. The latter is getting curtailed by chipped cards and the largest source of fraud is now online transactions (so called card not present) where the merchant has your CC number. If their system is breached the bad guys have a wealth of card numbers they sell in an E-bay like site on the dark web. This is where the Citi virtual CC comes in handy. Here's how it works to protect the bank and the hassles you go through when a card as to be re-issued. Citi's virtual CCs let you generate an actual credit card, complete with security code and expiration date. What is unique is that once the virtual CC is used it can only be used subsequently by that same merchant and is declined by any other. You can also set a total limit on what the merchant can charge as well as an expiration date. I use them for all my online accounts because they are, for all practical purposes, immune to the malware that steals CC info. Even if somehow the virtual CC is used before the merchant makes the initial charge that locks in the CC to their account the charge can be reversed without closing your actual card which has a different number. You can manage multiple Citi virtual CCs and view charge status, close, or adjust limits over time so managing them is quite easy with no risk to your primary account." }, { "docid": "11122", "title": "", "text": "\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \"\"gain\"\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\"" }, { "docid": "23217", "title": "", "text": "It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules)." }, { "docid": "217781", "title": "", "text": "The harvested losses are capital losses. See this IRS page: Generally, realized capital losses are first offset against realized capital gains. Any excess losses can be deducted against ordinary income up to $3,000 ($1,500 if married filing separately) on line 13 of Form 1040. Losses in excess of this limit can be carried forward to later years to reduce capital gains or ordinary income until the balance of these losses is used up. This means that your harvested losses can be used to offset ordinary income --- up to $3000 in a single year, and with extra losses carried forward to future years. It is pretty close to a free lunch, provided that you have some losses somewhere in your portfolio. This free lunch is available to anyone, but for a human, it can be quite a chore to decide when to sell what, keep track of the losses, and avoid the wash sale rules. The advantage of robo-advisors is that they eat that kind of bookkeeping for breakfast, so they can take advantage of tax loss harvesting opportunities that would be too cumbersome for a human to bother with." }, { "docid": "221715", "title": "", "text": "\"If you bought them, you can sell them. That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called \"\"wash sale\"\" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year. There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes.\"" }, { "docid": "163896", "title": "", "text": "Generally it goes by when they receive the check, not when they cash the check. Though if the check was received prior to midnight on December 31st, but after the bank closes, they would probably let the tax payer decide to count it for the next year. Of course if the check is from person A to person B then the only issue is gift tax, or annual limit calculations. If it is company to person then income tax could be involved. The IRS calls this Constructive receipt Income Under the cash method, include in your gross income all items of income you actually or constructively receive during your tax year. If you receive property or services, you must include their fair market value in income. Example. On December 30, 2011, Mrs. Sycamore sent you a check for interior decorating services you provided to her. You received the check on January 2, 2012. You must include the amount of the check in income for 2012. Constructive receipt. You have constructive receipt of income when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You do not need to have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are treated as having received it when your agent received it. Example. Interest is credited to your bank account in December 2012. You do not withdraw it or enter it into your passbook until 2013. You must include it in your gross income for 2012. Delaying receipt of income. You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to avoid paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Example. Frances Jones, a service contractor, was entitled to receive a $10,000 payment on a contract in December 2012. She was told in December that her payment was available. At her request, she was not paid until January 2013. She must include this payment in her 2012 income because it was constructively received in 2012. Checks. Receipt of a valid check by the end of the tax year is constructive receipt of income in that year, even if you cannot cash or deposit the check until the following year. Example. Dr. Redd received a check for $500 on December 31, 2012, from a patient. She could not deposit the check in her business account until January 2, 2013. She must include this fee in her income for 2012. In general it is best not to cut it close. If the check is to be counted as an January event it is best to send it in January. If it is to be December event it is best to send it early enough to be able to say with confidence that the check arrived at the destination before the end of the year." }, { "docid": "568064", "title": "", "text": "\"As long as the IRS treats bitcoin as property, then whenever you use bitcoin to buy anything you are supposed to consider the capital gain or capital loss. There is no \"\"until it's converted to fiat\"\". You are paying local sales tax and capital gains, or paying local sales tax and reporting capital loss. As long as you are consistent, you can use either the total cost basis, or individual lot purchases. The same as other property like stocks (except without stock specific regulations like wash-sale rules :D ). There are a lot of perks or unintentional loopholes for speculators, with the property designation. There are a lot of disadvantages for consumers trying to use it like a currency. Someone mixing investment and spending funds across addresses is going to have complicated tax issues, but fortunately the exchanges have records of purchase times and prices, which you can compare with the addresses you control. Do note, after that IRS guideline, another federal agency designated Bitcoin as a commodity, which is a subset of \"\"property\"\" with its own more favorable but different tax guidelines.\"" }, { "docid": "446553", "title": "", "text": "When your debt is forgiven, you have to consider the amount written off as an ordinary income item (with the exclusion of the debt originated from the purchase of primary home). If you're trying to write the debt off from your taxes - then it won't work. Even if you can expense the debt forgiveness, you will incur tax liability on your personal taxes side, and in addition you'll be out of cash in your business. So basically you'll end up paying it with after tax money, exactly the thing you're trying to avoid. In addition, you're dealing with related persons here, which means that the loss deduction might not be allowed (depends on the actual details of the transaction), so you might actually end up paying more taxes with this scheme that just paying off the loan directly (if your business pays taxes separately from your person). A loss on the sale or exchange of property between related persons is not deductible. This applies to both direct and indirect transactions, but not to distributions of property from a corporation in a complete liquidation. For the list of related persons, see Related persons next." }, { "docid": "511066", "title": "", "text": "\"For restricted stock, I think the vesting date meets the requirements of the second wash sale trigger from IRS Pub 550: Wash Sales: Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade I base this on these two quotes from IRS Pub 525: Restricted Property: any income from the property, or the right to use the property, is included in your income as additional compensation in the year you receive the income or have the right to use the property. - Until the property becomes substantially vested, it is owned by the person who makes the transfer to you, usually your employer. So on the vest date: The transfer is taxable Ownership is transferred to you That seems close enough to \"\"a fully taxable trade\"\" for me. Maybe this changes if you pay the tax on the stock on the grant date. See Pub 525: Restricted Property: Choosing to include in income for year of transfer. Obviously, if this is important you should consult your tax advisor. Technicalities aside, I don't think it passes the sniff test. You're getting salable shares when the restricted stock vests. If you're selling other shares at a loss within 30 days of the vesting date, that smells like a wash sale to me.\"" }, { "docid": "113948", "title": "", "text": "Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase." }, { "docid": "571362", "title": "", "text": "Purchase capital asset (deductible expense). Sell capital asset next year, then use the proceeds of the sale to pay your employees. Unless you buy in a quickly gentrifying area you'll have a fair amount of unrecoverable expenses like closing costs, repairs, etc that you won't make up with an increase in property value. Plus property taxes, utilities, etc. And who knows how quickly you can sell the place, might end up with a bloated useless asset and no money to pay employees. And in an audit an asset purchased with no actual use to the business will get disallowed. Either retain the earnings and take the tax hit, or make a deal with your employees to pre pay them their next year's salary. Of course if you fire someone or they quit good luck getting the overpaid portion back." }, { "docid": "188672", "title": "", "text": "Many mortgages penalize early payment, and I assume it's possible to disallow it altogether. It makes sense why they don't want early payment. If you pay off the loan early, it is usually because you re-financed it to a loan with a lower rate. You would do this when the interest rate is low (lower than when you got your original loan). If you pay it off early, that means they will have to re-invest the money again, or they will lose money if they just have it sitting around. However, recall above that people pay it off early when the interest rate is low; that is the worst time for them to re-invest this into another mortgage, because the rate will not be as good for them as the one you were originally going to keep paying." }, { "docid": "316501", "title": "", "text": "\"Like JoeTaxpayer said, I don't know of any difference between the backdoor and a regular Roth IRA contribution besides the issue with existing pre-tax IRA money. So if it is your practice to contribute at the beginning of the year (good for you, most people wait until the last minute), then doing a backdoor seems like the safe choice. Some people have speculated that, hypothetically, the IRS could use the \"\"step transaction doctrine\"\" to treat it as a single direct contribution to a Roth IRA (which then would be disallowed and cause you a penalty until you take it out), but I have never heard of this happening to anyone. As for the paperwork, you just need to fill out one extra form at tax time, Form 8606 (you need to complete two parts of it, one for the non-deductible contribution, and one for the conversion). It is pretty straightforward. (Although I've found that it is a pain to do it in tax software.) Another option would be for you to contribute to a Roth IRA now, but when you discover that you're over the limit at the end of the year, re-characterize it as a Traditional contribution and then convert it back to Roth. But this way is not good because then there is a long time between the Traditional contribution and the Roth conversion, and earnings during this time will be taxed at conversion.\"" }, { "docid": "456064", "title": "", "text": "Sell the house, in the scenario you describe he is using the property as an investment with a $250 per month buy-in. This investment doesn't make a return right now and when you add in the cost of dealing with the tenant (even if he doesn't have those cost now, he will when they move out)he is out of more than $250 a month and he has no direct knowledge that the value will definitely increase. He would be better spent selling the house and putting the funds into an investment, even a risky investment. It will have less maintenance cost associated with the risky investment than the rental property. Besides sitting on the property for 10-15 years would cost him 30-45k plus the cost of re-renting the house when empty.Not to mention the inevitable increases in taxes over that time which will either increase his deficit or eat up the rent increase he is able to charge. Don't take the loss on the sale, just short sale it and take the money and invest! One last thought... An alternative is to creatively finance a sale (take payments from a buyer until they can buy outright) that will cover the FULL mortgage and get him the price he needs. You can look up owner financing to find out more on how to do this. Hope this helps!" }, { "docid": "257703", "title": "", "text": "\"How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive? You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K \"\"weren't received\"\". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay out $60k/yr of \"\"pension\"\". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in \"\"business equipment\"\" of some sort each year to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income. The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\\ Yes. Wouldn't go there. Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better.\"" }, { "docid": "537916", "title": "", "text": "\"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \"\"Wash Sale Rule\"\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\"" }, { "docid": "479985", "title": "", "text": "Not sure I understand your question. If you're talking about paying off the payable, you decrease the liability and decrease an asset. Aka when you actually pay the wages, decrease cash and decrease wages payable. If you're talking about closing expense accounts, you simply credit the expense to zero and debit retained earnings for the same amount (which will reduce RE since RE is equity and has a normal credit balance). If you're talking about accruing revenue, you simply do the opposite of an expense. If revenue is accrued, then you credit a revenue account (increase it) and increase cash or acc receivable. If you're closing a revenue account, you debit the account to zero and credit Retained Earnings or Income Summary (which eventually gets closed into RE anyways). The sum of these revenues and expenses will leave you either with a debit or credit balance in RE. A credit balance means you have a profit and a debit balance means you have a loss. Other expenses like sales tax and other expenses excluding COGS might also be taken directly from RE or identified at the time of sale and held in its own separate account. But I'm not sure if this will answer your question since I'm not sure what you're asking." }, { "docid": "445994", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you can do what you are contemplating doing, and it works quite well. Just don't get the university's payroll office too riled by going in each June, July, August and September to adjust your payroll withholding! Do it at the end of the summer when perhaps most of your contract income for the year has already been received and you have a fairly good estimate for what your tax bill will be for the coming year. Don't forget to include Social Security and Medicare taxes (both employee's share as well as employer's share) on your contract income in estimating the tax due. The nice thing about paying estimated taxes via payroll deduction is that all that tax money can be counted as having been paid in four equal and timely quarterly payments of estimated tax, regardless of when the money was actually withheld from your university paycheck. You could (if you wanted to, and had a fat salary from the university, heh heh) have all the tax due on your contract income withheld from just your last paycheck of the year! But whether you increase the withholding in August or in December, do remember to change it back after the last paycheck of the year has been received so that next year's withholding starts out at a more mellow pace." } ]

[ { "docid": "244334", "title": "", "text": "I've recently discovered that Morningstar provides 5yr avgs of a few numbers, including dividend yield, for free. For example, see the right-hand column in the 'Current Valuation' section, 5th row down for the 5yr avg dividend yield for PG: http://financials.morningstar.com/valuation/price-ratio.html?t=PG&region=usa&culture=en-US Another site that probably has this, and alot more, is YCharts. But that is a membership site so you'll need to join (and pay a membership fee I believe.) YCharts is supposedly pretty good for long-term statistical information and trend graphs for comparing and tracking stocks." } ]

[ { "docid": "401818", "title": "", "text": "There are many things that can make a company's share price go up or down. Generally, over the long term, the more consistently profitable a company is the more its share price will go up. However, there are times when a company may not be making any profits yet but its share price still goes up. This can be due to forecasts that the company will start making profits in the near future. Sometimes a company may report increased profits from the previous year but makes less than what the market was expecting it to make. This can cause its share price to fall, as the market is disappointed in the results. In the shorter term greed, fear and speculation can make a company's share price move irrationally. When you think the share price should be going up it suddenly falls, and Vis-versa. When interest rates are low, companies with higher dividend yields (compared to bank account interest rates) become high in demand and their shares generally go up in price. As the share price goes up the dividend yield will be reduced unless the company continues to increase the dividend it distributes to shareholders. When interest rates start to rise these companies become less favourable as they are seen as higher risk comparable to similar returns from having one's money in the safety of the bank. This can cause the share prices to fall. These are just some of the reasons that make a company's share price move up or down. As humans are an irrational bunch often ruled by emotions, sometimes the reasons share prices move in a particular direction can be quite confusing, but that is the nature of the financial markets." }, { "docid": "378508", "title": "", "text": "You might want to look up Dividend Yield Trap. Many stocks with high dividend yields got that way not because they decided to increase their dividend, but because their prices have dropped. Usually the company is not in good shape and will reduce their dividend, and you're stuck with a low-yield stock which has also decreased in price." }, { "docid": "99084", "title": "", "text": "Join me for a look at the Quote for SPY. A yield of 1.82%. So over a year's time, your $100K investment will give you $1820 in dividends. The Top 10 holdings show that Apple is now 3% of the S&P. With a current dividend of 2.3%. Every stock in the S&P has its own different dividend. (Although the zeros are all the same. Not every stock has a dividend.) The aggregate gets you to the 1.82% current dividend. Dividends are accumulated and paid out quarterly, regardless of which months the individual stocks pay." }, { "docid": "379232", "title": "", "text": "\"$36 dividend/900 DJIA = 4% 5.5% bond yield = ($36 dividend/660 DJIA) Graham wrote this at a very different time in financial markets- interest rates were much higher, and the DJIA much lower. In addition, bonds were yielding more than stocks, unlike today when the DJIA % the 10yr Treasury yield 2.63% and 2.13% respectively. In addition, his \"\"weigher of the odds\"\" suggests waiting to invest until equity prices are lower (usually dividends aren't reduced), and therefore the DJIA dividend yield would rise relative to bond yields.\"" }, { "docid": "546075", "title": "", "text": "\"Brendan, The short answer is no, there is no need to get into any other funds. For all intents and purposes the S&P 500 is \"\"The Stock Market\"\". The news media may quote the Dow when the market reaches new highs or crashes but all of the Dow 30 stocks are included in the S&P 500. The S&P is also marketcap weighted, which means that it owns in higher proportion the big \"\"Blue Chip\"\" stocks more than the smaller less known companies. To explain, the top 10 holdings in the S&P represent 18% of the total index, while the bottom 10 only represent 0.17% (less than 1 percent). They do have an equal weighted S&P in which all 500 companies represent only 1/500th of the index and that is technically even more diversified but in actuality it makes it more volatile because it has a higher concentration of those smaller less known companies. So it will tend to perform better during up markets and worse during down markets. As far as diversification into different asset classes or other countries, that's non-sense. The S&P 500 has companies in it that give you that exposure. For example, it includes companies that directly benefit from rising oil prices, rising gold prices, etc known as the Energy and Materials sector. It also includes companies that own malls, apartment complexes, etc. known as the Real Estate sector. And as far as other countries, most of the companies in the S&P are multi-national companies, meaning that they do business over seas in many parts of the world. Apple and FaceBook for example sell their products in many different countries. So you don't need to invest any of your money into an Emerging Market fund or an Asia Fund because most of our companies are already doing business in those parts of the world. Likewise, you don't need to specifically invest into a real estate or gold fund. As far as bonds go, if you're in your twenties you have no need for them either. Why, because the S&P 500 also pays you dividends and these dividends grow over time. So for example, if Microsoft increases its dividend payment by 100% over a ten year period , all of the shares you buy today at a 2.5% yield will, in 10 years, have a higher 5% yield. A bond on the other hand will never increase its yield over time. If it pays out 4%, that's all it will ever pay. You want to invest because you want to grow your money and if you want to invest passively the fastest way to do that is through index ETFs like the $SPY, $IVV, and $RSP. Also look into the $XIV, it's an inverse VIX ETF, it moves 5x faster than the S&P in the same direction. If you want to actively trade your money, you can grow it even faster by getting into things like options, highly volatile penny stocks, shorting stocks, and futures. Don't get involved in FX or currency trading, unless it through futures.\"" }, { "docid": "517637", "title": "", "text": "\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"" }, { "docid": "594959", "title": "", "text": "\"I can think of one major income source you didn't mention, dividends. Rather than withdrawing from your pension pot, you can roll it over to a SIPP, invest it in quality dividend growth stocks, then (depending on your pension size) withdraw only the dividends to live on. The goal here is that you buy quality dividend growth stocks. This will mean you rarely have to sell your investments, and can weather the ups and downs of the market in relative comfort, while using the dividends as your income to live off of. The growth aspect comes into play when considering keeping up with inflation, or simply growing your income. In effect, companies grow the size of their dividend payments and you use that to beat the effects of inflation. Meanwhile, you do get the benefit of principle growth in the companies you've invested in. I don't know the history of the UK stock market, but the US market has averaged over 7% total return (including dividends) over the long term. A typical dividend payout is not much better than your annuity option though -- 3% to 4% is probably achievable. Although, looking at the list of UK Dividend Champion list (companies that have grown their dividend for 25 years continuous), some of them have higher yields than that right now. Though that might be a warning sign... BTW, given all the legal changes around buy-to-lets recently (increases stamp duty on purchase, reduction in mortgage interest deduction, increased paperwork burden due to \"\"right to rent\"\" laws, etc.) you want to check this carefully to make sure you're safe on forecasting your return.\"" }, { "docid": "235391", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "314085", "title": "", "text": "\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"" }, { "docid": "328182", "title": "", "text": "\"I have 3 favorite sites that I use. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mcd/dividend-history - lists the entire history of dividends and what dates they were paid so you can predict when future dividends will be paid. http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/restaurants/mcd-mcdonalds/ - this site lists key stats like dividend yield, and number of years dividend has increased. If the next dividend is announced, it shows the number of days until the ex-dividend date, the next ex-div and payment date and amount. If you just want to research good dividend stocks to get into, I would highly recommend the site seekingalpha.com. Spend some time reading the articles on that site under the dividends section. Make sure you read the comments on each article to make sure the author is not way off base. Finally, my favorite tool for researching good dividend stocks is the CCC Lists produced by Seeking Alpha's David Fish. It is a giant spreadsheet of stocks that have been increasing dividends every year for 5+, 10+, or 25+ years. The link to that spreadsheet is here: http://dripinvesting.org/tools/tools.asp under \"\"U.S. Dividend Champions\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "378427", "title": "", "text": "\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"" }, { "docid": "72189", "title": "", "text": "Why do people talk about stock that pay high dividends? Traditionally people who buy dividend stocks are looking for income from their investments. Most dividend stock companies pay out dividends every quarter ( every 90 days). If set up properly an investor can receive a dividend check every month, every week or as often as they have enough money to stagger the ex-dates. There is a difference in high $$ amount of the dividend and the yield. A $1/share dividend payout may sound good up front, but... how much is that stock costing you? If the stock cost you $100/share, then you are getting 1% yield. If the stock cost you $10/share, you are getting 10% yield. There are a lot of factors that come into play when investing in dividend stocks for cash flow. Keep in mind why are you investing in the first place. Growth or cash flow. Arrange your investing around your major investment goals. Don't chase big dollar dividend checks, do your research and follow a proven investment plan to reach your goals safely." }, { "docid": "115207", "title": "", "text": "For the constant growth problem, I don't see why the answer would be anything other than the stock price grown for 3 years at the cost of equity determined from CAPM. Someone can correct me if the dividend is relevant. So: rs = rf + beta x (market premium) rs = 0.046 + 0.9 x (0.06) = 0.10 price now = $40.00 price after 3 years' growth = $40.00 x (1+0.10)^3 = $53.24 EDIT: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-dividend-yields-factored-into-beta two conflicting answers so you'll just have to figure it out" }, { "docid": "269550", "title": "", "text": "Buy a fund of bonds, there are plenty and are registered on your stockbroker account as 'funds' rather than shares. Otherwise, to the individual investor, they can be considered as the same thing. Funds (of bonds, rather than funds that contain property or shares or other investments) are often high yield, low volatility. You buy the fund, and let the manager work it for you. He buys bonds in accordance to the specification of the fund (ie some funds will say 'European only', or 'global high yield' etc) and he will buy and sell the bonds regularly. You never hold to maturity as this is handled for you - in many cases, the manager will be buying and selling bonds all the time in order to give you a stable fund that returns you a dividend. Private investors can buy bonds directly, but its not common. Should you do it? Up to you. Bonds return, the company issuing a corporate bond will do so at a fixed price with a fixed yield. At the end of the term, they return the principal. So a 20-year bond with a 5% yield will return someone who invests £10k, £500 a year and at the end of the 20 years will return the £10k. The corporate doesn't care who holds the bond, so you can happily sell it to someone else, probably for £10km give or take. People say to invest in bonds because they do not move much in value. In financially difficult times, this means bonds are more attractive to investors as they are a safe place to hold money while stocks drop, but in good times the opposite applies, no-one wants a fund returning 5% when they think they can get 20% growth from a stock." }, { "docid": "561140", "title": "", "text": "Having a good dividend yield doesn't guarantee that a stock is safe. In the future, the company may run into financial trouble, stop paying dividends, or even go bankrupt. For this reason, you should never buy a stock just because it has a high dividend yield. You also need some criteria to determine whether that stock is safe to buy. Personally, I consider a stock is reasonably safe if it meets the following criteria:" }, { "docid": "386423", "title": "", "text": "\"First, I'd recommend that you separate \"\"short-term\"\" assets from \"\"long-term\"\" assets in your head. Short-term assets are earmarked for spending on something specific in the near future or are part of your emergency fund. These should be kept in cash or short bond funds. Long-term assets are assets that you can take some risks with and aren't going to spend in the next few years. Under normal circumstances, I'd recommend 80% stocks/20% bonds or even 70/30 for someone your age, assuming you're saving mainly for retirement and thus have a correspondingly long time horizon. These portfolios historically are much less risky than 100% stock and only return slightly less. Right now, though, I think that anyone who doesn't absolutely need safety keep 100% of their long-term assets in stocks. I'm 26 and this is my asset allocation. Bond yields are absolutely pathetic by historical standards. Even ten year treasury yields are comparable to S&P 500 dividend yields and likely won't outperform inflation if held to maturity. The stock market is modestly undervalued when measured by difference between current P/E ratio and the historical average and more severely undervalued when you account for the effects of reduced inflation, transaction costs and capital gains taxes on fair valuation. Therefore, the potential reward for taking risk is much higher now than it usually is.\"" }, { "docid": "438349", "title": "", "text": "Ignoring the wildly unreasonable goal, I'll answer just the Headline question asked. It's possible to choose dividend paying stocks so that you receive a dividend check each month. Dividends are typically paid quarterly, so 3 stocks chosen by quality first, but also for their dividend date will do this. To get $2000/mo or $24,000/yr would only take an investment of $600,000 in stocks that are yielding a 4% dividend." }, { "docid": "435722", "title": "", "text": "what do you mean exactly? Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown. It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds. You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important. The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20. For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable. The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH" }, { "docid": "109639", "title": "", "text": "With the disclaimer that I am not a technician, I'd answer yes, it does. SPY (for clarification, an ETF that reflects the S&P 500 index) has dividends, and earnings, therefore a P/E and dividend yield. It would follow that the tools technicians use, such as moving averages, support and resistance levels also apply. Keep in mind, each and every year, one can take the S&P stocks and break them up, into quintiles or deciles based on return and show that not all stock move in unison. You can break up by industry as well which is what the SPDRs aim to do, and observe the movement of those sub-groups. But, no, not all the stocks will perform the way the index is predicted to. (Note - If a technician wishes to correct any key points here, you are welcome to add a note, hopefully, my answer was not biased)" } ]

[ { "docid": "116675", "title": "", "text": "Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target. Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently). I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share. As an example, say you have shares in X, Co. X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%. All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall. Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price? Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those? The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well." } ]

[ { "docid": "287950", "title": "", "text": "The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now." }, { "docid": "435722", "title": "", "text": "what do you mean exactly? Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown. It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds. You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important. The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20. For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable. The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH" }, { "docid": "517637", "title": "", "text": "\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"" }, { "docid": "247449", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"" }, { "docid": "201484", "title": "", "text": "Shit article that displays the author has no farming idea of how Warren Buffet operates. The man has metrics that tell him when shares are too expensive. When this happens, he doesn't buy, and dividends can tend to accumulate when you have almost $500 billion in assets (which could just be 2 years of 5% dividend yields). If they are expensive, he won't buy, and money will accumulate. When there is a crash, he buys on the cheap. That how you get 23% of Year-on-year gains for 40 years. The fact that he is not buying does indicate that the market is overvalued, which is consistent with the fact that there is still a substantial amount of QE. The question is: what will happen as the Fed winds it down. They are aiming for a small decrease or leveling out of the stock market. If that happens, and the market stagnates for a couple of years, maybe the metrics will catch up and he will buy again without a crash happening." }, { "docid": "15785", "title": "", "text": "Price doesn't mean anything. Price is simply total value (market capitalization) divided by number of shares. Make sure you consider historical dividends when hunting for big yields. It's very possible that the data you're pulling is only the annualized yield on the most recent dividend payment. Typically dividends are declared in dollar terms. The total amount of the dividend to be issued is then divided by the number of shares and paid out. Companies rarely (probably never but rarely to avoid the peanut gallery comments about the one company that does this) decide dividend payments based on some proportion of the stock price. Between company A and company B paying approximately the same historical yield, I'd look at both companies to make sure neither is circling the tank. If both look strong, I'd probably buy a bit of both. If one looks terrible buy the other one. Don't pick based on the price." }, { "docid": "226264", "title": "", "text": "CHN is a Closed-End Fund. CHN actually pays out three types of distributions: In the case of CHN, they appear to be paying yearly. The most recent dividend, with exdate of 18 Dec 2014, consisted of $3.4669 of Long-term capital gains and $0.2982 cash dividend. Prior to that, the dividend with exdate of 19 Dec 2013 consisted of $2.8753 long-term capital gains and $0.4387 cash dividend. For a standard dividend yield you typically would not expect short-term and long-term capital events to be included in a yield calculation, as these events really only occur in relation to a fund rebalancing (changing its investments) and are not really due to the actual performance of the fund in any way. Most free sites that provide dividend information do not make a distinction on the dividend type. Data source: Premium Data Full Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Premium Data/Norgate." }, { "docid": "495600", "title": "", "text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\"" }, { "docid": "276860", "title": "", "text": "However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%" }, { "docid": "327556", "title": "", "text": "\"You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions. A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond. The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the \"\"Yield to Maturity.\"\" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same. A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity. When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?\"" }, { "docid": "509879", "title": "", "text": "You should never invest in a stock just for the dividend. Dividends are not guaranteed. I have seen some companies that are paying close to 10% dividends but are losing money and have to borrow funds just to maintain the dividends. How long can these companies continue paying dividends at this rate or at all. Would you keep investing in a stock paying 10% dividends per year where the share price is falling 20% per year? I know I wouldn't. Some high dividend paying stocks also tend to grow a lot slower than lower or non dividend paying stocks. You should look at the total return - both dividend yield and capital return combined to make a better decision. You should also never stay in a stock which is falling drastically just because it pays a dividend. I would never stay in a stock that falls 20%, 30%, 50% or more just because I am getting a 5% dividend. Regarding taxation, some countries may have special taxation rules when it comes to dividends just like they may have special taxation rules for longer term capital gains compared to shorter term capital gains. Again no one should use taxation as the main purpose to make an investment decision. You should factor taxation into your decision but it should never be the determining factor of your decisions. No one has ever become poor in making a gain and paying some tax, but many people have lost a great portion of their capital by not selling a stock when it has lost 50% or more of its value." }, { "docid": "378427", "title": "", "text": "\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"" }, { "docid": "243499", "title": "", "text": "In a money market fund, one share is worth $1. For your fund, you'll earn $0.0010 a year per share, or 0.10%. That is all that you will earn. The APY is just another number to represent this interest rate, not a separate income stream. If you were expecting extra money from a separately credited dividend, you were mistaken. (Usually the APY is a slightly different number than the interest rate, to reflect the way that the interest is compounded over the course of the year. In this case the compounding is too slight to notice with just 2 decimal places.) If you were investing in a regular savings account, you would see the rate you are paid expressed as an APY also, but not as a dividend (as no shares are involved) and use that number to compare the two. If you were buying a bond fund or stock fund that did not have a fixed price, you could calculate the dividend yield based on the current stock price, but you would not probably see an APY listed. Money market funds are kind of an odd hybrid of 'fund' and 'savings', so they list both." }, { "docid": "558665", "title": "", "text": "REIT's are a different beast than your normal corporate stock (such as $AAPL). Here is a good article to get you started. From there you can do some more research into what you think you will need to truly evaluate an REIT. How To Assess A Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Excerpt: When evaluating REITs, you will get a clearer picture by looking at funds from operations (FFO) rather than looking at net income. If you are seriously considering the investment, try to calculate adjusted funds from operations (AFFO), which deducts the likely expenditures necessary to maintain the real estate portfolio. AFFO is also a good measure of the REIT's dividend-paying capacity. Finally, the ratio price-to-AFFO and the AFFO yield (AFFO/price) are tools for analyzing an REIT: look for a reasonable multiple combined with good prospects for growth in the underlying AFFO. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "199751", "title": "", "text": "that index fund providers don’t have incentive to push companies to change for the better and create shareholder value. And yet we see countless share buybacks. Dividend yield on the S&amp;P that has been rising since the year 2000. I don't buy the argument of it's devouring capitalism...I do however buy the argument it is helping distort the market, as mentioned with shorting/negative positions." }, { "docid": "244334", "title": "", "text": "I've recently discovered that Morningstar provides 5yr avgs of a few numbers, including dividend yield, for free. For example, see the right-hand column in the 'Current Valuation' section, 5th row down for the 5yr avg dividend yield for PG: http://financials.morningstar.com/valuation/price-ratio.html?t=PG&region=usa&culture=en-US Another site that probably has this, and alot more, is YCharts. But that is a membership site so you'll need to join (and pay a membership fee I believe.) YCharts is supposedly pretty good for long-term statistical information and trend graphs for comparing and tracking stocks." }, { "docid": "235391", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "286267", "title": "", "text": "\"Indeed, the correlation has been across all stocks and even branching out to other asset classes on a lot of days. As a sort of \"\"hedge\"\" I like to use high yielding dividend stocks as my trading vehicles. If all stocks are going to trade in tandem I may as well have downside protection built in. Dividends do that. I gain from a churning market and if I get the macro wrong then I can double or even triple down for the div yield. I like it...so far no holes in the plan have formed up. Been working well for a couple of years. As far as the macro I think the correlation to the euro will break if Italy gets past its late January '12 auction. My whole thesis falls apart if that auction does not snap the capital markets like a twig. I'd have to get more bullish overall. If they also get past the big Febuary auction then I think the euro will be convincingly out of the woods.\"" }, { "docid": "244754", "title": "", "text": "You can use long-term options called LEAPS to increase dividend yield. Here's how it works: Let's say you buy a dividend-yielding stock for $38 that pays an annual dividend of $2 for a 5.3% yield. Next, you SELL a deep-in-the-money LEAPS options. In this hypothetical we'll sell the $25 call option for $13. That now reduces our cost basis from $38 to $25. Since the dividend remains @ $2, our yield is now $2/$25 = 8%. Now there are issues that may need to be dealt with like early assignment of the option where rolling the option may be necessary. More details of this strategy can be found on my website." } ]

[ { "docid": "469888", "title": "", "text": "\"First, welcome to Money.SE. The selected page is awful. I don't know the value in listing different expirations at the same strike. Usually, all the strikes are grouped by month, so I'd be looking at Jan '15 across all strikes. \"\"In the money\"\" means the price of a stock is trading above the strike price, if a call, or below it, if a put. On 10/20 of some year, Intel was trading at $23.34. The January $25 call strike was just $0.70, and April's was $1.82. These were out of the money. The $25 puts were \"\"in the money\"\" by $1.66 so you could have paid $1.90 for the Jan $25 put, with $.24 of time premium. By November, the price rose and the put fell, to $.85, all time premium. As with stocks, the key thing is to only buy calls of stock that are going to go up. If a stock will fall, buy puts. Curious, what was the class discussion just before the teacher gave you this image?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "271525", "title": "", "text": "\"First, pay off the highest interest first. If you have 80%, pay it first. Paying off a card/loan with a lower rate, but a lower payment or a lower balance can help your mental capacity by having fewer things to pay. But, this should be a decision where things are similar, such as 20-25%, not 20-80%. What about any actual loans? Any loans with a fixed payment and a fixed amount? If you must continue to use CC while paying them off, use the one with the lowest interest rate. Call all of your debtors and ask for reduction in interest rate. This is not the option to take first... This is a strategic possibility and will cause credit score issues... If you are considering bankruptcy or not paying back some, then you have even more negotiation power. Consider calling them all and telling them that you only have a little bit of money and would like to negotiate a settlement with them. \"\"I have only a limited amount of money, and lots of debt. I will pay back whomever gives me the best deal.\"\" See what they say. They may not negotiate until you stop paying them for a few months... It is not uncommon to get them to reduce interest (even to 0%) and/or take a reduction in the amount due - up to 25 cents on the dollar. To do this, you might need to pay the amount all at once, so look into loans from sources like retirement, home equity, life insurance, family... Also, cut out all expenses. Cut them hard; cut until it hurts. Cut out the cell phone (get a pre-paid plan and/or budget $10-20/month), cut out all things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, lottery, tattoos, cable tv, steak, eating out. Some people would suggest that you consider pets and finding them a new home. No games, no trips, no movies, no new clothes... Cut out soft drinks, candy, and junk food. Take precautions to stay healthy - don't wear shoes in the house, brush your teeth, take a multi vitamin, get exercise, eat healthy (this is not expensive, organic stuff, just regular groceries). Consider other ways to save, like moving in with family or friends. Having family or friends live with you and pay rent. Analyze costs like daycare vs. job income. Apply for assistance - there are lots of levels, and some don't rely on others, such as daycare. Consider making more money - new job, 2nd job, overtime, new career. Consider commute - walk, bike, take the bus. Work 4/10's. Telework. Make a list of every expense and prioritize them. Only keep things which are really necessary. Good Luck.\"" }, { "docid": "528052", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \"\"leverage\"\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\"" }, { "docid": "193303", "title": "", "text": "The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc). Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option. However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price." }, { "docid": "440458", "title": "", "text": "1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110? Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110. For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price. That is a different scenario, and gets into the actual nature of options, where investors will arrange multiple simultaneous transactions in order to limit risk and retain reward within a certain band of future prices. As pointed out by @Nick R, this fee would be very significant, for a call option which had a price set below the current price. Typically, options are sold 'out of the money' initially, which means that at the current share price (at the time the option is purchased), executing the option would lose you money. If you purchase an 'in the money' option, the transaction cost initially would by higher than any apparent gain you might have by immediately executing the option. For a more realistic Options example, assume that it costs $15 initially to buy either the Call option, or the Put option. In that case, after buying both options as listed in your scenarios you would earn a profit if the share price exceeded $120 [The $120 sale price less the $90 call option = $30, which is your total fee initially], or dropped below $80 [The $110 Put price less the $80 purchase price = $30]. This type of transaction implies that you expect the price to either swing up, or swing down, but not fall within the band between $80-$120. Perhaps you might do this if there was an upcoming election or other known event, which might be a failure or success, and you think the market has not properly accounted for either scenario in advance. I will leave further discussion on that topic [arranging options of different prices to create specific bands of profitability / loss] to another answer (or other questions which likely already exist on this site, or in fact, other resources), because it gets more complicated after that point, and is outside the root of your question." }, { "docid": "226546", "title": "", "text": "\"Your broker likely didn't close your position out because it is a covered position. Why interfere with a trade that has no risk to it, from their perspective? There's no risk for the broker since your account holds the shares available for delivery (definition of covered), for if and when the options you wrote (sold) are exercised. And buyers of those options will eventually exercise the options (by expiration) if they remain in-the-money. There's only a chance that an option buyer exercises prematurely, and usually they don't because there's often time value left in the option. That the option buyer has an (ahem) \"\"option\"\" to exercise is a very key point. You wrote: \"\"I fully expected my position to be automatically liquidated by whoever bought my call\"\". That's a false assumption about the way options actually work. I suggest some study of the option exercise FAQs here: Perhaps if your position were uncovered – i.e. you wrote the call without owning the stock (don't try this at home, kids!) – and you also had insufficient margin to cover such a short position, then the broker might have justifiably liquidated your position. Whereas, in a covered call situation, there's really no reason for them to want to interfere – and I would consider that interference, as opposed to helpful. The situation you've described is neither risky for them, nor out of the ordinary. It is (and should be) completely up to you to decide how to close out the position. Anyway, your choices generally are:\"" }, { "docid": "267113", "title": "", "text": "The nature of options requires you to understand that they are essentially a bet. In one sense, so is investing in stocks. We imagine a bell curve (first mistake) with a median return at 10%/yr and a standard deviation of about 14%. Then we say that odds are that over some period of time a monte-carlo simulation can give us the picture of the likely returns. Now, when you buy short term options, say one month or so, you are hoping the outcome is a rise in price that will yield some pretty high return, right? There was a time I noticed a particular stock would move a large percent based on earnings. And earnings were a day before options expiration. So I'd buy the call that was just out of the money and if the surprise was up, I'd make 3-4X my money. But I was always prepared to lose it all and often did. I never called this investing. I know of no recovery strategy. Sorry." }, { "docid": "413899", "title": "", "text": "On July 20, when you posted this question, AAPL was trading almost at 115. The market charges an extra premium for buying an option that is in the money (or on the money like this case) over one that is out of the money. In order for the 130 Call to be worth something the market has to go up 15 points. Otherwise you lose 100% of your premium. On the other hand with the 115 every point that the market goes up means that you recover some of that premium. It is much more likely that you recover part of your premium with the 115 than with the 130. With the higher probability of losing part of the premium, the sellers are going to be reluctant to write the option unless they receive larger compensation." }, { "docid": "480337", "title": "", "text": "\"So, if an out-of-the-money option (all time value) has a price P (say $3.00), and there are N days... The extrinsic value isn't solely determined by time value as your quote suggests. It's also based on volatility and demand. Here is a quote from http://www.tradingmarkets.com/options/trading-lessons/the-mystery-of-option-extrinsic-value-767484.html distinguishing between extrinsic time value and extrinsic non-time value: The time value of an option is entirely predictable. Time value premium declines at an accelerating rate, with most time decay occurring in the last one to two months before expiration. This occurs on a predictable curve. Intrinsic value is also predictable and easily followed. It is worth one point for every point the option is in the money. For example, a call with a strike of 30 has three points of intrinsic value when the current value of the underlying stock is $33 per share; and a 40 put has two points of intrinsic value when the underlying stock is worth $38. The third type of premium, extrinsic value, increases or decreases when the underlying stock changes and when the distance between current value of stock and strike of the option get closer together. As a symptom of volatility, extrinsic value may be greater for highly volatile underlying stock, and lower for less volatile stocks. Extrinsic value is the only classification of option premium that is unpredictable. The SPYs you point out probably had a volatility component affecting value. This portion is a factor of expectations or uncertainty. So an event expected to conclude prior to expiration, but of unknown outcome can cause theta to be higher than p/n. For example, a drug company is being sued and the outcome of a trial will determine whether that company pays out millions or not. The extrinsic will be higher than p/n prior to the outcome of the trial then drops after. Of course, the most common situation where this happens is earnings. After the announcement, it's not unusual to see a dramatic drop in the extrinsic portion of options. This is why sometimes a new option trader gets angry when buying calls prior to earnings. When 'surprise' good earnings are announced as hoped, the rise is stock price is largely offset by a fall in extrinsic value giving call holders little or no gain! As for the reverse situation where theta is lower than p/n would expect? Well you can actually have negative theta meaning the extrinsic portion rises over time. (this statement is a little confusing because theta is usually described as negative, but since you describe it as a positive number, negative here means the opposite of what you'd expect). This is a quote from \"\"Option Volatility & Pricing\"\". Keep in mind that they use 'positive' theta to mean the time value increases up over time: Is it ever possible for an option to have a positive theta such that if nothing changes the option will be worth more tomorrow than it is today? When futures options are subject to stock-type settlement, as they currently are in the United States, the carrying cost on a deeply in-the-money option, either a call or a put, can, under some circumstances, be greater than the volatility component. If this happens, and the option is European (no early exercise permitted), it will have a theoretical value less than parity (less than intrinsic value). As expiration approaches, the value of the option will slowly rise to parity. Hence, the option will have a positive theta. Sheldon Natenberg. Option Volatility & Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques (Kindle Locations 1521-1525). Kindle Edition.\"" }, { "docid": "187214", "title": "", "text": "Check out this site: http://www.m-x.ca/produits_options_actions_en.php (Under the Trading Strategies). If you have a background in math or eco or are comfortable with graphs, I suggest you graph the payoffs of each of these strategies. It will really help you understand it. If you need help with this, let me know and I can draw a couple out for you. Your question is rather vague but also complicated however I will try to answer it. First off, many investors buy options to hedge against a current position in a stock (already own the stock). But you can also try to make money off of options rather than protecting yourself. Let's suppose you anticipate that a stock will increase in value so you want to capitalize on this. Suppose further that you have a small amount of money to invest, say $100. Suppose the stock is currently at $100 so that you can only afford 1 share. Suppose there is a call option out there with strike $105 that costs you only $1. Let's compare two scenarios: The stock increases to $120 at the maturity date of the option. So, you made a lot more money with the same initial investment. The amount of money you put in is small (i.e. can be perceived as low risk). However, if the stock price ended up being $104.90 then your options are worthless (i.e. can be perceived as high risk). HTH." }, { "docid": "315748", "title": "", "text": "When dividend is announced the stock and option price may react to that news, but the actual payout of the dividend on the ex-dividend date is what you probably are referring to. The dividend payout affects the stock price on the ex-dividend date as the stock price will drop by the amount of paid out dividend (not taking into account other factors). This in turn drives the prices of all options. The amount of change in the option price for this event is not only dependent the dividend payout, but also on how far these are in our out of the money and what there time to expiration is. The price of a call option that is far out of the money would react less than the price of a put that would be far in the money. Therefore I would argue that these two will not necessarily offset each other." }, { "docid": "179919", "title": "", "text": "For a cheaper hedge , you can try a call spread. e.g if you shorted a stock at 40 but are worried that it can get bought out for 60. then buy a 50-60 bull call spread with appropriate number of contracts or even 50-55. this is better than just buying a 50 call as it will be expensive. Also the other option is not to short but buy a debit bear put spread 40-30 near the money and then buy an out of money call spread ( 55-60)." }, { "docid": "16531", "title": "", "text": "Looking at the SPY option chain you posted, all of the call options with a strike price of 199.50 or higher have a bid of N/A. That's because the ask price for all of those options is 0.01, and the bid price has to be less than the ask price, but buyers are not allowed to bid 0.00. It's not accurate to say that no one wants to buy those calls - anyone who wanted to buy one of those calls would just buy it at the ask price of 0.01. So why are people selling those calls for just 0.01? The further out of the money you go as you get closer to expiration, the less likely the underlying stock or ETF (SPY in this case) will go over the strike price, and the less you can sell it for. SPY closed yesterday at about 195, and it would have to go up almost 2.5% today for the 199.50 calls to be in the money, and a 2.5% move in one day is extremely unlikely." }, { "docid": "576976", "title": "", "text": "\"Am I getting it right that in India in terms of short selling in F&O market its what in the rest of the world is called naked short and you actually make promise to depositary that you will deliver that security you sold on settlement without actually owning the security or going through SLB mechanism? In Future and Options; there is no concept of short selling. You buy a future for a security / index. On the settlement day; the exchange determines the settlement price. The trade is closed in cash. i.e. Based on the settlement price, you [and the other party] will either get money [other party looses money] or you loose money [other party gets the money]. Similarly for Options; on expiry, the all \"\"In Money\"\" [or At Money] Options are settled in cash and you are credit with funds [the option writer is debited with funds]. If the option is \"\"out of money\"\" it expires and you loose the premium you paid to exercise the option.\"" }, { "docid": "112321", "title": "", "text": "\"Simple answer: Breakeven is when the security being traded reaches a price equal to the cost of the option plus the option's strike price, assuming you choose to exercise it. So for example, if you paid $1.00 for,say, a call option with a strike price of $19.00, breakeven would be when the security itself reaches $20.00. That being said, I can't imagine why you'd \"\"close out a position\"\" at the breakeven point. You wouldn't make or lose money doing that, so it wouldn't be rational. Now, as the option approaches expiration, you may make adjustments to the position to reflect shifts in momentum of the stock. So, if it looks as though the stock may not reach the option strike price, you could close out the position and take your lumps. But if the stock has momentum that will carry it past the strike price by expiration, you may choose to augment your position with additional contracts, although this would obviously mean the new contracts would be priced higher, which raises your dollar cost basis, and this may not make much sense. Another option in this scenario is that if the stock is going to surpass strike price, it might be a good opportunity to buy additional calls with either later expiration dates or with higher strike prices, depending on how much higher you speculate the stock will climb. I've managed to make some money doing this, buying options with strike prices just a dollar or two higher (or lower when playing puts), because the premiums were (in my opinion) underpriced to the potential peak of the stock by the expiration date. Sometimes the new options were actually slightly cheaper than my original positions, so my dollar cost basis overall dropped somewhat, improving my profit percentages.\"" }, { "docid": "132288", "title": "", "text": "I do this often and have never had a problem. My broker is TD Ameritrade and they sent several emails (and even called and left a message) the week of expiry to remind me I had in the money options that would be expiring soon. Their policy is to automatically exercise all options that are at least $.01 in the money. One email was vaguely worded, but it implied that they could liquidate other positions to raise money to exercise the options. I would have called to clarify but I had no intention of exercising and knew I would sell them before expiry. In general though, much like with margin calls, you should avoid being in the position where the broker needs to (or can do) anything with your account. As a quick aside: I can't think of a scenario where you wouldn't be able to sell your options, but you probably are aware of the huge spreads that exist for many illiquid options. You'll be able to sell them, but if you're desperate, you may have to sell at the bid price, which can be significantly (25%?) lower than the ask. I've found this to be common for options of even very liquid underlyings. So personally, I find myself adjusting my limit price quite often near expiry. If the quote is, say, 3.00-3.60, I'll try to sell with a limit of 3.40, and hope someone takes my offer. If the price is not moving up and nobody is biting, move down to 3.30, 3.20, etc. In general you should definitely talk to your broker, like others have suggested. You may be able to request that they sell the options and not attempt to exercise them at the expense of other positions you have." }, { "docid": "95415", "title": "", "text": "\"You may look into covered calls. In short, selling the option instead of buying it ... playing the house. One can do this on the \"\"buying side\"\" too, e.g. let's say you like company XYZ. If you sell the put, and it goes up, you make money. If XYZ goes down by expiration, you still made the money on the put, and now own the stock - the one you like, at a lower price. Now, you can immediately sell calls on XYZ. If it doesn't go up, you make money. If it does goes up, you get called out, and you make even more money (probably selling the call a little above current price, or where it was \"\"put\"\" to you at). The greatest risk is very large declines, and so one needs to do some research on the company to see if they are decent -- e.g. have good earnings, not over-valued P/E, etc. For larger declines, one has to sell the call further out. Note there are now stocks that have weekly options as well as monthly options. You just have to calculate the rate of return you will get, realizing that underneath the first put, you need enough money available should the stock be \"\"put\"\" to you. An additional, associated strategy, is starting by selling the put at a higher than current market limit price. Then, over a couple days, generally lowering the limit, if it isn't reached in the stock's fluctuation. I.e. if the stock drops in the next few days, you might sell the put on a dip. Same deal if the stock finally is \"\"put\"\" to you. Then you can start by selling the call at a higher limit price, gradually bringing it down if you aren't successful -- i.e. the stock doesn't reach it on an upswing. My friend is highly successful with this strategy. Good luck\"" }, { "docid": "147361", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, long calls, and that's a good point. Let's see... if I bought one contract at the Bid price above... $97.13 at expiry of $96.43 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $113 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.00 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $77 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.14 option = in the money by 1-cent=$1/contract profit - option price(x100) = $1-$58 = $57 loss The higher strike prices have much lower losses if they expire with the underlying stock at- or near-the-money. So, they carry \"\"gentler\"\" downside potential, and are priced much higher to reflect that \"\"controlled\"\" risk potential. That makes sense. Thanks.\"" }, { "docid": "489044", "title": "", "text": "\"Is it equity, or debt? Understanding the exact nature of one's investment (equity vs. debt) is critical. When one invests money in a company (presumably incorporated or limited) by buying some or all of it — as opposed to lending money to the company — then one ends up owning equity (shares or stock) in the company. In such a situation, one is a shareholder — not a creditor. As a shareholder, one is not generally owed a money debt just by having acquired an ownership stake in the company. Shareholders with company equity generally don't get to treat money received from the company as repayment of a loan — unless they also made a loan to the company and the payment is designated by the company as a loan repayment. Rather, shareholders can receive cash from a company through one of the following sources: \"\"Loan repayment\"\" isn't one of those options; it's only an option if one made a loan in the first place. Anyway, each of those ways of receiving money based on one's shares in a company has distinct tax implications, not just for the shareholder but for the company as well. You should consult with a tax professional about the most effective way for you to repatriate money from your investment. Considering the company is established overseas, you may want to find somebody with the appropriate expertise.\"" }, { "docid": "576364", "title": "", "text": "\"You're forgetting the fundamental issue, that you never have to actually exercise the options you buy. You can either sell them to someone else or, if they're out of the money, let them expire and take the loss. It isn't uncommon at all for people to buy both a put and call option (this is a \"\"straddle\"\" when the strike price of both the put and call are the same). From Investopedia.com: A straddle is an options strategy in which the investor holds a position in both a call and put with the same strike price and expiration date, paying both premiums. This strategy allows the investor to make a profit regardless of whether the price of the security goes up or down, assuming the stock price changes somewhat significantly. Read more: Straddle http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/straddle.asp#ixzz4ZYytV0pT\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "455398", "title": "", "text": "Sounds like a bad idea. The IRA is built on the power of compounding. Removing contributions will hurt your retirement savings, and you will never be able to make that up. Instead, consider tax-free investments. State bonds, Federal bonds, municipal bonds, etc. For example, I invest in California muni bonds fund which gives me ~3-4% annual dividend income - completely tax free. In addition - there's capital appreciation of your fund holdings. There are risks, of course, for example rate changes will affect yields and capital appreciation, so consult with someone knowledgeable in this area (or ask another question here, for the basics). This will give you the same result as you're expecting from your Roth IRA trick, without damaging your retirement savings potential." } ]

[ { "docid": "502150", "title": "", "text": "\"The biggest and primary question is how much money you want to live on within retirement. The lower this is, the more options you have available. You will find that while initially complex, it doesn't take much planning to take complete advantage of the tax system if you are intending to retire early. Are there any other investment accounts that are geared towards retirement or long term investing and have some perk associated with them (tax deferred, tax exempt) but do not have an age restriction when money can be withdrawn? I'm going to answer this with some potential alternatives. The US tax system currently is great for people wanting to early retire. If you can save significant money you can optimize your taxes so much over your lifetime! If you retire early and have money invested in a Roth IRA or a traditional 401k, that money can't be touched without penalty until you're 55/59. (Let's ignore Roth contributions that can technically be withdrawn) Ok, the 401k myth. The \"\"I'm hosed if I put money into it since it's stuck\"\" perspective isn't true for a variety of reasons. If you retire early you get a long amount of time to take advantage of retirement accounts. One way is to primarily contribute to pretax 401k during working years. After retiring, begin converting this at a very low tax rate. You can convert money in a traditional IRA whenever you want to be Roth. You just pay your marginal tax rate which.... for an early retiree might be 0%. Then after 5 years - you now have a chunk of principle that has become Roth principle - and can be withdrawn whenever. Let's imagine you retire at 40 with 100k in your 401k (pretax). For 5 years, you convert $20k (assuming married). Because we get $20k between exemptions/deduction it means you pay $0 taxes every year while converting $20k of your pretax IRA to Roth. Or if you have kids, even more. After 5 years you now can withdraw that 20k/year 100% tax free since it has become principle. This is only a good idea when you are retired early because you are able to fill up all your \"\"free\"\" income for tax conversions. When you are working you would be paying your marginal rate. But your marginal rate in retirement is... 0%. Related thread on a forum you might enjoy. This is sometimes called a Roth pipeline. Basically: assuming you have no income while retired early you can fairly simply convert traditional IRA money into Roth principle. This is then accessible to you well before the 55/59 age but you get the full benefit of the pretax money. But let's pretend you don't want to do that. You need the money (and tax benefit!) now! How beneficial is it to do traditional 401ks? Imagine you live in a state/city where you are paying 25% marginal tax rate. If your expected marginal rate in your early retirement is 10-15% you are still better off putting money into your 401k and just paying the 10% penalty on an early withdrawal. In many cases, for high earners, this can actually still be a tax benefit overall. The point is this: just because you have to \"\"work\"\" to get money out of a 401k early does NOT mean you lose the tax benefits of it. In fact, current tax code really does let an early retiree have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the Roth/traditional 401k/IRA question. Are you limited to a generic taxable brokerage account? Currently, a huge perk for those with small incomes is that long term capital gains are taxed based on your current federal tax bracket. If your federal marginal rate is 15% or less you will pay nothing for long term capital gains, until this income pushes you into the 25% federal bracket. This might change, but right now means you can capture many capital gains without paying taxes on them. This is huge for early retirees who can manipulate income. You can have significant \"\"income\"\" and not pay taxes on it. You can also stack this with before mentioned Roth conversions. Convert traditional IRA money until you would begin owing any federal taxes, then capture long term capital gains until you would pay tax on those. Combined this can represent a huge amount of money per year. So littleadv mentioned HSAs but.. for an early retiree they can be ridiculously good. What this means is you can invest the maximum into your HSA for 10 years, let it grow 100% tax free, and save all your medical receipts/etc. Then in 10 years start withdrawing that money. While it sucks healthcare costs so much in America, you might as well take advantage of the tax opportunities to make it suck slightly less. There are many online communities dedicated to learning and optimizing their lives in order to achieve early retirement. The question you are asking can be answered superficially in the above, but for a comprehensive plan you might want other resources. Some you might enjoy:\"" }, { "docid": "95390", "title": "", "text": "\"Where are you from? The Netherlands has tax treaties with different countries that may offer you some additional options. The Netherlands calculates a maximum tax free contribution to your pension each year based on your income. If you contributed less than you were allowed to (pensioengat), you can invest the difference between your actual and allowed contributions in special retirement investments that usually offer tax advantages. A gap like this can be due to getting a bonus or a raise. After looking around, the investments available are either a special savings account (banksparen) or an annuity (lijfrente). Your allowed contributions to both will be tax deductible and the investment itself is excluded from wealth tax (box 3 taxes). I also see Aegon offering an \"\"investment annuity\"\" that lets you invest in any of 7 of their mutual funds until a certain date at which time you liquidate and use the proceeds to fund an annuity. With the Dutch retirement options, wou will not in general get the same freedom of choice or low costs associated with IRAs in the US. I'm not sure about ISAs in the UK. It's also important to check any tax agreements between countries to ensure your chosen investment vehicle gets the tax advantaged treatment in your home country as it does in the Netherlands. For US citizens, this is important even when living abroad. For others, it is important if you return to your home country and still have this investment. If you are a US citizen, you have an additional option. The US / Dutch tax treaty allows you to make these contributions to preexisting (i.e. you had these before moving to NL) retirement accounts in the US like an IRA. Note that in practice it may be difficult to contribute to an existing Roth IRA because you would need to have earned income after the foreign income tax deduction but less than the maximum income for a Roth contribution.\"" }, { "docid": "569342", "title": "", "text": "\"You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money. In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance. DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer. Talk to Vanguard only. They are eager to get their hands on your IRA money and will gladly take care of the whole thing for you at no charge to you. DO NOT cash in any stock shares, or mutual fund shares, or whatever is in your Roth IRA in preparation for \"\"cashing out of the old account\"\". There is a method where you take a \"\"rollover distribution\"\" from your American Funds Roth IRA and then deposit the money into your new Vanguard Roth IRA within 60 days, but I recommend most strongly against using this because too many people manage to screw it up. It is 60 days, not two months; the clock starts from the day American Funds cuts your check, not when you get the check, and it is stopped when the money gets deposited into your new account, not the day you mailed the check to Vanguard or the day that Vanguard received it, and so on. In short, DO NOT try this at home: stick to a trustee-to-trustee transfer and avoid the hassles.\"" }, { "docid": "416633", "title": "", "text": "\"You could put in in a Money Market Fund. These are designed to always be $1 per share, and not lose money. Of course, it still, very rarely, happens and is called \"\"breaking the buck\"\" when they do. Sounds like the high yield savings is the way to go. The rates will be the same as what you can get from a Money Market Fund, but you also have the added advantage that the account is FDIC insured. BTW, using a Roth as an emergency fund is a terrible idea. It is true that, since you already paid taxes on your contributions, you can withdraw those contributions without incurring penalties. However, you have to file paperwork to do it, and since it's not common, the IRA custodian is likely to screw it up. Plus, you have to keep track of what were contributions, and what was investment returns, to not run afoul of the penalties. And it will take time to do it, which you may not have in an emergency. Considering you're only looking at getting 1% interest anyway, there's no reason to use a Roth account as an emergency fund. You can set those same automatic deposits into a savings account.\"" }, { "docid": "123027", "title": "", "text": "I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you if the 401(k) has poor investment options)." }, { "docid": "424841", "title": "", "text": "If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances." }, { "docid": "355373", "title": "", "text": "The simplest thing is to transfer to your current account. You'll have the ability to borrow (assuming employer allows) 50% of the balance if you need to, and one less account to worry about. Transferring to an IRA is the other common choice. This offers the ability to convert to a Roth IRA and to invest any way you choose. The 401(k) options may be limited. Without more details, it's tough to decide. For example, if you are in the 15% bracket, the Roth conversion can be a great idea. And the 401(k) might be not so great, just deposit to the match, and then use the IRA. For example." }, { "docid": "65567", "title": "", "text": "If you have just started an IRA (presumably with a contribution for 2012), you likely have $5000 in it, or $10,000 if you made a full contribution for 2013 as well. At this time, I would recommend putting it all in a single low-cost mutual fund. Typically, mutual funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 Index have lower costs (annual expense fees) than actively managed funds, and most investment companies offer such mutual funds, with Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, to name a few, having very low expenses even among index funds. Later, when you have more money in the account, you can consider diversifying into more funds, buying stocks and bonds, investing in ETFs, etc. Incidentally, if you are just starting out and your Roth IRA is essentially your first investment experience, be aware that you do not need a brokerage account for your Roth IRA until you have more money in the account to invest and specifically want to buy individual stocks and bonds instead of just mutual funds. If you opened a brokerage account for your Roth IRA, close it and transfer the Roth IRA to your choice of mutual fund company; else you will be paying annual fees to the brokerage for maintaining your account, inactivity fees since you won't be doing any trading, etc. The easiest way to do this is to go to the mutual fund company web site and tell them that you want to transfer your IRA to them (not roll over your IRA to them) and they will take care of all the paper work and collecting your money from the brokerage (ditto if your Roth IRA is with a bank or another mutual fund company). Then close your brokerage account." }, { "docid": "403024", "title": "", "text": "According to the link below, it does appear that you must take an RMD, or Required Minimum Distribution, from your IRA at age 70½, or face a 50% penalty of the RMD AMOUNT that has NOT been taken, which is going to be much less than 50% of your entire account balance. Why specifically this happens would be opinion based on my interpretation of the reasoning behind those that enacted the law. I can tell you penalties like this are used to encourage behavior - you can't just leave your money in a tax-free account forever. The IRA is meant to help you build your savings for retirement, and at age 70½ you should be ready for retirement. This means you must begin withdrawing the money - but that doesn't mean you have to spend it. In the link below, there are outlines on what you can do to satisfy the required minimum distribution. As it specifies, you can take one lump sum, or spread it out over multiple payments, and there's a calculator to identify what your RMD will be. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/retirement_and_planning/understanding_iras/withdrawals_and_distributions/age_70_and_a_half_and_over As noted in the linked page, you DO NOT have to take an RMD on a Roth IRA. If this is important to you, you may want to consider Rolling Over your current IRA to a Roth." }, { "docid": "387338", "title": "", "text": "With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k." }, { "docid": "399543", "title": "", "text": "Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds." }, { "docid": "360533", "title": "", "text": "This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser." }, { "docid": "41417", "title": "", "text": "\"1) Usually, the choice between Traditional vs. Roth is whether you believe that your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future than it is now. Your income is probably in the 25% bracket now. It's hard to say whether that should be considered \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\". Some people advocate Roth only for 15% bracket; but your income would probably go into higher brackets in the future, so Roth may be preferable from this point of view. Roth IRA also has another advantage that the principal of contributions can be taken out at any time without tax or penalty, so it can serve as an emergency fund just as well as money in taxable accounts. Given that you may not have a lot of money saved up right now, this is useful. 2) In a sense, it's nice to have a mix of Traditional and Roth when you withdraw to hedge against uncertainty in future tax rates and have the option of choosing whichever one is advantageous to withdraw when you need to withdraw. That said, you will likely have many years of access to a 401k and high income in your future working years, in which you can contribute to a Traditional 401k (or if no access to 401k, then Traditional IRA), so a mix will almost certainly happen even if you go all Roth IRA now. 3) I think that depends on you, whether you are a hands-on or hands-off kind of investor.\"" }, { "docid": "82251", "title": "", "text": "Scenario #2 is most likely will generate the best long-term financial outcome. If your friends emergency fund is truly excessive and can afford to be reduced by the amount required to payoff the vehicle loan then that will save a few dollars. Scenario #3 is not an approach I would recommend. However, if your friend has to choose between paying off the loan or maxing his Roth... Making a few assumptions regarding the loan, I figure it is probably a 4 year - $13.5k. Which means he is paying somewhere below $40 a month in interest. As JAGnalyst speaks to people often over estimate the spread they can make with another investment compared to the interest rate on a loan. However, the effect of compounded, tax-free returns can not be ignored when you are discussing a 22 year old person contributing to a Roth IRA. Doing some calculations, assuming the car is being paid off on the first payment your friend will save just under $1000. The total interest that would have been paid over the life of the loan. If your friend adds $3600, approximately one year of payments, to their Roth IRA contributions -- just once. Assuming a 3.5% avg return and a retirement age of 65, the $3600 will be worth just south of $16k; a $12,400 return. Using the same investment return and tax assumptions and simplifying the $1000 savings as if it was all realized as a lump sum at the time of paying off the loan. That $1000 invested in a non-tax-advantaged investment (because the whole discussion is based on if the friend had to pick and lose the opportunity for the one year to make the additional Roth IRA contribution) would return $3047." }, { "docid": "119051", "title": "", "text": "You must file as married for 2013 if you were married as of December 31, 2013. It is true that the Roth IRA contribution phaseout for Married Filing Separately is 0 - $10K. But you can still do backdoor Roth IRA contribution (contribute to a Traditional IRA, then convert it to a Roth IRA; assuming you do not have any pre-tax IRAs, this is identical to a Roth IRA contribution). But you already made a Roth IRA contribution for 2013, and did not do the backdoor. Let's assume that you want to turn it into a backdoor Roth IRA contribution, and that you don't have any pre-tax IRAs. There are two ways to do this: Withdraw the Roth IRA you contributed (including earnings). Then, do a normal backdoor Roth IRA contribution (contribute to a Traditional IRA, then immediately convert it to Roth IRA). The earnings you had in the Roth IRA that you withdrew will be treated as normal income and taxed. The conversion will not be taxable because all of the Traditional IRA was non-deductible when you converted. Re-characterize your original Roth IRA contribution as a Traditional IRA contribution, then convert it to Roth IRA. It will be treated as if you made a Traditional IRA contribution originally, and then waited until now to convert. The earnings in the IRA up till now will be taxed on conversion. So in both cases, you will need to pay income tax on the earnings in the account up to now. The difference between the two is in the amount of money in the IRA now. With the first way, you can only contribute $5500 now. With the second way, you will keep the same amount of money you have in the IRA now." }, { "docid": "532657", "title": "", "text": "\"To keep it simple, I will keep the focus between a Trad IRA and a normal Taxable account (Roth's and 401(k) add more complications that make another problem). I will also assume, based on the question, that you aren't able to deduct the IRA contributions. Also, a Roth is better in every way than a non-deductible Trad IRA so the \"\"backdoor Roth\"\" mentioned in other answers is probably the way to go and this is more of an academic exercise. Ok, so why bother with the IRA if you're taxed anyway? Because you aren't taxed as you go! With a normal non-tax-advantaged account you have to pay taxes every year on any realized capital gains and dividends (including fund distributions). Because of the compounding nature of savings, delaying paying taxes is in your best interest. Simple example: Taxable Account: IRA Account: Now, this is a very simplified example. If you're more tax-conscious (i.e. more buy-and-holding), you can delay paying some of the long-term cap gains in the taxable account, but any short-term cap gains (including distributions from the underlying funds) will be at your marginal income tax rate. A few other observations: EDIT: I set up a spreadsheet where each year I deposited $1000 for 35 years. Each year, the balance in the IRA account grows by 5%, but the taxable only by 5%*(1-0.15) = 4.25% due to the effect of taxes. At the end of 35 years, my simulation assumes you pay 15% on all the gains in the IRA, which would likely not be the case, but easier than forecasting through retirement and demonstrates what I'm trying to show. Here's plot showing the balance in the various accounts, the blue is the IRA account, orange the taxable account, and grey is the effective balance of the IRA, after paying taxes on the gains: And here's a plot of the advantage of the IRA (after paying taxes on the gains), vs the taxable account: Whether that's worth it to you or anyone depends on some the assumptions in the simulation, especially effective tax rates, and growth rates, as well as any personal issues. Some people may be less likely to raid an IRA account, for example, than a normal account. Conversely, if you have a project coming up, you may need something a bit more liquid than an IRA.\"" }, { "docid": "527010", "title": "", "text": "\"the deadline for roth conversions is december 31st. more precisely, roth conversions are considered to have happened in the tax year the distribution was taken. this creates a kind of loop hole for people who do an ira rollover (not a trustee-to-trustee transfer). technically, you can take money out of your traditional ira on december 31st and hold it for 60 days before deciding to roll it over into either another traditional ira or a roth ira. if you decide to put it in another traditional account, it is not a taxable event. but if you decide to put it in a roth account, the \"\"conversion\"\" is considered to have happened in december. unfortunately non-trustee rollovers are tricky. for one, the source trustee will probably take withholding that you will have to make up with non-ira funds. and rollovers are limitted to a certain number per year. also, if you miss the 60-day deadline, you will have to pay an early-withdrawal penalty (with some exceptions). if you really want to push the envelope, you could try to do this with a 60-day-rule extension, but i wouldn't try it. source: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590a/ch01.html oddly, recharacterizations (basically reverse roth conversions) have a deadline of october 15th of the year after the original roth conversion it is reversing. so, you could do the conversion in december, then you have up to 10 months to change your mind and \"\"undo\"\" the conversion with a \"\"recharacterization\"\". again, this is tricky business. at the very least, you should be aware that the tax calculations for recharacterization are different if you convert the funds into a new empty roth account vs an existing roth account with a previous balance. honestly, if you want to get into the recharacterization business, you can probably save more on taxes by converting in january before 20-month stock market climb rather than simply converting in the year your tax brackets are low. that is the typical recharacterization strategy. source: https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-IRAs-Recharacterization-of-Roth-Rollovers-and-Conversions\"" }, { "docid": "136879", "title": "", "text": "\"Wow. It's clear I'm outnumbered. When I'm approached with the question (and keep in mind, it's usually a couple data points and little else) \"\"I am getting started, with no other money do I fund a retirement or emergency account?\"\" I often suggest they put the funds into a Roth, in a money market fund, and treat it like an emergency account. If there's in fact an emergency, there's no penalty to withdraw the deposit and we're talking peanuts for interest today. With no emergency, two things could happen: A) As the account grows beyond what's needed for emergencies, the excess can be invested long term. B) As the investor earns more money and saves up enough to have a true emergency account separate from the IRA, the Roth can be fully invested long term. The 'Bad idea' stems from the view that one is using their Roth as an emergency account, which of course is bad. The subtle difference is one has no retirement savings and puts their Emergency account into the otherwise unused Roth. As time passes, they've protected more funds to grow tax free. In the end, the most important thing is whether the person is saving and not tapping for simple non-emergency things. I'd rather see a guy with $25K in his Roth and no other funds than to have $5000 in his bank account because every time it gets larger he feels compelled to spend it. My answer to Matt is to treat it for now as you intended, low risk, CD or cash (money market).\"" }, { "docid": "495980", "title": "", "text": "\"ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely, would it still be a bad idea to entirely disregard a 401k plan? Yes. A 401k, like an IRA, is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" and as such enjoys certain legal protections. For a Roth 401k, the taxes are paid now and the interest accumulates tax free, and withdrawals will be tax-free. Doing it on your own means that your own savings will have interest taxed as you earn it. For a traditional 401k, current savings are deducted from current earnings, and the withdrawals will be taxed. Doing it on your own loses the deferral of tax at this time. Generally, 401ks and IRAs are highly resistant to judgements in civil lawsuits. If you file for bankruptcy protection at any time in your working career, the assets in these accounts are immune (in most states) from being used to pay off your creditors. If you do it on your own, that savings account will be emptied to pay off creditors in bankruptcy and also will be assets that can be taken from you in civil judgements (for example, you get in a car accident and they sue you). You might never be sued, nor file bankruptcy in your entire life, but you are unnecessarily exposing yourself to risks: anything might happen in the next 50 years. What you will lose in such circumstances far outweighs any perceived benefits you could possibly earn by rolling your own. If you are the sort of person who can max out your 401k and IRA contributions each year, and still have a significant sum to set aside for savings, you should contact an investment advisor and attorney to see about protecting your assets.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "461592", "title": "", "text": "(To be clear, IRA accounts are just wrappers, and can contain a large variety of investments. I'm restricting myself to the usual setup of investment in the stock market.) So, let's say you have $5000 in savings, as an emergency fund. Of the top of my head, putting some of it into a Roth IRA could backfire in the following ways: The basic principle here is that the stock market is not a good place for storing your emergency cash, which needs to be secured against loss and immediately accessible. Once you're happy with your level of emergency cash, however, tax-advantaged investment accounts are a reasonable next step." } ]

[ { "docid": "436884", "title": "", "text": "Luke, I'd like to point out some additional benefits of the Roth IRA accounts 1) Going Roth, you can effectively increase the amount of your contribution to your IRA account. In your example, you are assuming that your contribution to Roth IRA is in fact $ 85 ($100 less $ 15 tax paid). In reality, albeit more costly, Roth IRA allows you to contribute full $ 100 ($117.65 less $ 17.65 tax incurred.) Using this method you can in fact grow your tax-free funds to $ 1.006.27 over 30 years. The larger you effective tax rate is, the larger will be the difference between your maximum effective Traditional vs Roth IRA contribution will be. 2) Should you need to access your IRA funds in case of emergency (unqualified event of not buying your first home, nor paying for your college education), Roth IRA account contributions can be withdrawn without incurring the 10% penalty charge, that would be imposed on your unqualified Traditional IRA distribution. 3) As other contributors noted it's hard to believe that lower US tax rates would prevail. Chances are you will be contributing to Traditional 401k later throughout your work life. Having a Roth IRA account would afford you a tax diversification needed to hedge against possible tax rate hikes coming in the future. Considering the gloomy future of the Social Security funding, and ever-growing US national debt, can we really expect for there to not be any tax rate increases in the next 20-40 years?! By the way, as others pointed out your effective tax rate will always be lower than your marginal tax bracket." }, { "docid": "398520", "title": "", "text": "Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such. You have 3 options: 1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k. 2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners. 3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement). My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same. You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement. If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one." }, { "docid": "204479", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're making big money at 18, you should be saving every penny you can in tax-advantaged retirement accounts. (If your employer offers it, see if you can do a Roth 401(k), as odds are good you'll be in a higher tax bracket at retirement than you are now and you will benefit from the Roth structure. Otherwise, use a regular 401(k). IRAs are also an option, but you can put more money into a 401(k) than you can into an IRA.) If you do this for a decade or two while you're young, you'll be very well set on the road to retirement. Moreover, since you think \"\"I've got the money, why not?\"\" this will actually keep the money from you so you can do a better job of avoiding that question. Your next concern will be post-tax money. You're going to be splitting this between three basic sorts of places: just plain spending it, saving/investing it in bank accounts and stock markets, or purchasing some other form of capital which will save you money or provide you with some useful capability that's worth money (e.g. owning a condo/house will help you save on rent - and you don't have to pay income taxes on that savings!) 18 is generally a little young to be setting down and buying a house, though, so you should probably look at saving money for a while instead. Open an account at Vanguard or a similar institution and buy some simple index funds. (The index funds have lower turnover, which is probably better for your unsheltered accounts, and you don't need to spend a bunch of money on mutual fund expense ratios, or spend a lot of time making a second career out of stock-picking). If you save a lot of your money for retirement now, you won't have to save as much later, and will have more income to spend on a house, so it'll all work out. Whatever you do, you shouldn't blow a bunch of money on a really fancy new car. You might consider a pretty-nice slightly-used car, but the first year of car ownership is distressingly close to just throwing your money away, and fancy cars only make it that much worse. You should also try to have some fun and interesting experiences while you're still young. It's okay to spend some money on them. Don't waste money flying first-class or spend tooo much money dining out, but fun/interesting/different experiences will serve you well throughout your life. (By contrast, routine luxury may not be worth it.)\"" }, { "docid": "416633", "title": "", "text": "\"You could put in in a Money Market Fund. These are designed to always be $1 per share, and not lose money. Of course, it still, very rarely, happens and is called \"\"breaking the buck\"\" when they do. Sounds like the high yield savings is the way to go. The rates will be the same as what you can get from a Money Market Fund, but you also have the added advantage that the account is FDIC insured. BTW, using a Roth as an emergency fund is a terrible idea. It is true that, since you already paid taxes on your contributions, you can withdraw those contributions without incurring penalties. However, you have to file paperwork to do it, and since it's not common, the IRA custodian is likely to screw it up. Plus, you have to keep track of what were contributions, and what was investment returns, to not run afoul of the penalties. And it will take time to do it, which you may not have in an emergency. Considering you're only looking at getting 1% interest anyway, there's no reason to use a Roth account as an emergency fund. You can set those same automatic deposits into a savings account.\"" }, { "docid": "219995", "title": "", "text": "Don't try individual stocks. If you have a job, any job, even one from mowing lawns, you can open a Roth IRA. If you are under 18 you will need your parents/guardian to setting up the account. You can put the an amount equal to your earned income into the Roth IRA, up to the annual maximum of $5500. There are advantages to a Roth IRA: What happens if you are using your income to pay for your car, insurance, etc? You can get the money from your parents, grandparents. The only rule is that you can't invest more than you have earned. Act before Tax day (April 15th). You know what you made last year. If you open the account and make the contribution before April 15th it can count for last year, as long as you are clear with the broker/bank when you make the deposit." }, { "docid": "495980", "title": "", "text": "\"ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely, would it still be a bad idea to entirely disregard a 401k plan? Yes. A 401k, like an IRA, is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" and as such enjoys certain legal protections. For a Roth 401k, the taxes are paid now and the interest accumulates tax free, and withdrawals will be tax-free. Doing it on your own means that your own savings will have interest taxed as you earn it. For a traditional 401k, current savings are deducted from current earnings, and the withdrawals will be taxed. Doing it on your own loses the deferral of tax at this time. Generally, 401ks and IRAs are highly resistant to judgements in civil lawsuits. If you file for bankruptcy protection at any time in your working career, the assets in these accounts are immune (in most states) from being used to pay off your creditors. If you do it on your own, that savings account will be emptied to pay off creditors in bankruptcy and also will be assets that can be taken from you in civil judgements (for example, you get in a car accident and they sue you). You might never be sued, nor file bankruptcy in your entire life, but you are unnecessarily exposing yourself to risks: anything might happen in the next 50 years. What you will lose in such circumstances far outweighs any perceived benefits you could possibly earn by rolling your own. If you are the sort of person who can max out your 401k and IRA contributions each year, and still have a significant sum to set aside for savings, you should contact an investment advisor and attorney to see about protecting your assets.\"" }, { "docid": "95390", "title": "", "text": "\"Where are you from? The Netherlands has tax treaties with different countries that may offer you some additional options. The Netherlands calculates a maximum tax free contribution to your pension each year based on your income. If you contributed less than you were allowed to (pensioengat), you can invest the difference between your actual and allowed contributions in special retirement investments that usually offer tax advantages. A gap like this can be due to getting a bonus or a raise. After looking around, the investments available are either a special savings account (banksparen) or an annuity (lijfrente). Your allowed contributions to both will be tax deductible and the investment itself is excluded from wealth tax (box 3 taxes). I also see Aegon offering an \"\"investment annuity\"\" that lets you invest in any of 7 of their mutual funds until a certain date at which time you liquidate and use the proceeds to fund an annuity. With the Dutch retirement options, wou will not in general get the same freedom of choice or low costs associated with IRAs in the US. I'm not sure about ISAs in the UK. It's also important to check any tax agreements between countries to ensure your chosen investment vehicle gets the tax advantaged treatment in your home country as it does in the Netherlands. For US citizens, this is important even when living abroad. For others, it is important if you return to your home country and still have this investment. If you are a US citizen, you have an additional option. The US / Dutch tax treaty allows you to make these contributions to preexisting (i.e. you had these before moving to NL) retirement accounts in the US like an IRA. Note that in practice it may be difficult to contribute to an existing Roth IRA because you would need to have earned income after the foreign income tax deduction but less than the maximum income for a Roth contribution.\"" }, { "docid": "360533", "title": "", "text": "This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser." }, { "docid": "384564", "title": "", "text": "tl;dr: Please please please do the conversion first. JoeTaxpayer's answer is correct, but I am of the opposite opinion. First, there's just about no reason to have post-tax dollars in a Traditional IRA. You'll eventually have to pay tax on the earnings those dollars generate, so it's essentially the same as having that money in a regular taxable account. Meanwhile, if you roll those dollars into a Roth IRA, you get to earn tax-free money on them for the rest of your life (and even after your death)! Second, even if you did have some reason for keeping those post-tax dollars where they are, the last thing you ever want to do is mix them with pre-tax dollars (from, say, your 401k). As soon as you mix them, all the dollars become subject to pro-rata taxation (as Joe mentioned), so any future decision you were planning to make about what to do with just your post-tax dollars is moot -- you have given away your right to think separately about your pre- and post-tax dollars. As an example, let's say the accounts you want to combine look like this: In the future you decide you want to move $2,000 from the above account into a Roth. Because you mixed the money, the IRS insists that your rollover consists of: So now you owe tax (and it's regular income tax, I believe, not even capital gains tax) on $1,500. That was money that you socked away specifically to avoid taxes, and now you've gone and paid taxes on it! Now, there are valid arguments for intentionally moving pre-tax dollars from a Traditional to a Roth like this, but the point is that you shouldn't even have to be having that argument -- you have post-tax dollars in your Traditional IRA that almost certainly belong in a Roth. By mixing your 401k into your Traditional IRA, you can no longer do anything with just the post-tax dollars. The IRS will forever insist that you do these pro-rated calculations. Say in the future you suddenly realize that a Roth is much better for your financial situation than a Traditional IRA. (Or you might still prefer a Traditional IRA, but as explained in the next sentence it's not available to you.) Unfortunately, because you're covered by a (new) 401k -- or maybe because you earn too much money to contribute pre-tax dollars to either a Traditional or Roth IRA -- you're out of luck. You're simply not allowed to contribute to a Roth. Most people in this situation can make use of what's called a back-door Roth. They contribute up to the maximum amount per year ($5,500 or whatever it is now) post-tax to a Traditional IRA and then immediately roll it over to their Roth. You can still try this, but guess what? Yep, because you're mixing these new post-tax dollars with pre-tax money in your Traditional IRA, every year your rollover will be tainted with that pre-tax money, diluting the whole point of the back-door Roth. You'll be paying taxes on money you never wanted to pay taxes on, and you'll be leaving post-tax money behind in your traditional IRA. (If it sounds like I'm annoyed about this situation from personal experience, it's because I am. :) By doing the conversion first, you never mix pre- and post-tax money, and your money goes where you want it. Of course, assuming you eventually do roll over your 401(k) into a Traditional IRA, the Really Annoying Consequence above will still plague you, but at least you'll have cleanly converted that first post-tax amount." }, { "docid": "355373", "title": "", "text": "The simplest thing is to transfer to your current account. You'll have the ability to borrow (assuming employer allows) 50% of the balance if you need to, and one less account to worry about. Transferring to an IRA is the other common choice. This offers the ability to convert to a Roth IRA and to invest any way you choose. The 401(k) options may be limited. Without more details, it's tough to decide. For example, if you are in the 15% bracket, the Roth conversion can be a great idea. And the 401(k) might be not so great, just deposit to the match, and then use the IRA. For example." }, { "docid": "48226", "title": "", "text": "\"As some of the other answers pointed out, company 401(k) accounts can sometimes have poor investment choices so if the company isn't doing some sort of matching and you only have a limited set of options, I would likely recommend that you roll the money over to a different 401(k) account so you have better investment options. Why choice from tens of funds when you may have the full market worth of options as your disposal? Likewise, if you have electronic deposit you might be able to have the 10% automatically deposited to that account out of your paycheck so you will still be getting the advantage of having \"\"forced savings\"\" from a young age. In regards to a Roth IRA, as others have pointed out, they are a bit of a gamble and you can't ensure that you will come out ahead at the end of the day in regards to taxes; however, you also need to take your own career goals into account when you make that decision. If you see yourself getting up there in the income bracket of the course of your career it doesn't hurt to have a Roth IRA now and start putting some money in it (limited amount though, maybe only $100 a month) but if you don't see yourself getting up that high in the income brackets then it might not be worth the overhead of having multiple accounts to keep track of. That said though, make sure that you aren't just saving for retirement, you should have another savings account that you are putting money away for rainy days, houses, and the like.\"" }, { "docid": "569342", "title": "", "text": "\"You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money. In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance. DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer. Talk to Vanguard only. They are eager to get their hands on your IRA money and will gladly take care of the whole thing for you at no charge to you. DO NOT cash in any stock shares, or mutual fund shares, or whatever is in your Roth IRA in preparation for \"\"cashing out of the old account\"\". There is a method where you take a \"\"rollover distribution\"\" from your American Funds Roth IRA and then deposit the money into your new Vanguard Roth IRA within 60 days, but I recommend most strongly against using this because too many people manage to screw it up. It is 60 days, not two months; the clock starts from the day American Funds cuts your check, not when you get the check, and it is stopped when the money gets deposited into your new account, not the day you mailed the check to Vanguard or the day that Vanguard received it, and so on. In short, DO NOT try this at home: stick to a trustee-to-trustee transfer and avoid the hassles.\"" }, { "docid": "442906", "title": "", "text": "Immediately move your Roth IRA out of Edward Jones and into a discount broker like Scottrade, Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or E-Trade. Edward Jones will be charging you a large fraction of your money (probably at least 1% explicitly and maybe another 1% in hidden-ish fees like the 12b-1). Don't give away several percent of your savings every year when you can have an account for free. Places like Edward Jones are appropriate only for people who are unwilling to learn about personal finance and happy to pay dearly as a result. Move your money by contacting the new broker, then requesting that they get your money out of Edward Jones. They will be happy to do so the right way. Don't try and get the money out yourself. Continue to contribute to your Roth as long as your tax bracket is low. Saving on taxes is a critically important part of being financially wise. You can spend your contributions (not gains) out of your Roth for any reason without penalty if you want/need to. When your tax bracket is higher, look at traditional IRA's instead to minimize your current tax burden. For more accessible ways of saving, open a regular (non-tax-advantaged) brokerage account. Invest in diversified and low-cost funds. Look at the expense ratios and minimize your portfolio's total expense. Higher fee funds generally do not earn the money they take from you. Avoid all funds that have a nonzero 12b-1 fee. Generally speaking your best bet is buying index funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or their close competitors. Or buying cheap ETF's. Any discount brokerage will allow you to do this in both your Roth and regular accounts. Remember, the reason you buy funds is to get instant diversification, not because you are willing to gamble that your mutual funds will outperform the market. Head to the bogleheads forum for more specific advice about 3 fund portfolios and similar suggested investment strategies like the lazy portfolios. The folks in the forums there like to give specific advice that's not appropriate here. If you use a non-tax-advantaged account for investing, buy and sell in a tax-smart way. At the end of the year, sell your poor performing stocks or funds and use the loss as a tax write-off. Then rebalance back to a good portfolio. Or if your tax bracket is very low, sell the winners and lock in the gains at low tax rates. Try to hold things more than a year so you are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate, rather than the short-term. Only when you have several million dollars, then look at making individual investments, rather than funds. In a non-tax-advantaged account owning the assets directly will help you write off losses against your taxes. But either way, it takes several million dollars to make the transactions costs of maintaining a portfolio lower than the fees a cheap mutual/index fund will charge." }, { "docid": "176104", "title": "", "text": "Some banks and credit unions have IRA accounts. They pay interest like a savings account or a CD but they are an IRA. After the 15th you can roll them over into a IRA at one of the big investment companies so you can get invest in an index or Target Retirement Fund. But it is not too late. Opening an account at one of the big companies takes ten minutes (you need to know your social security number and your bank account info) they can pull it out of your bank account. I helped my kid do the same thing this week. We went on-line Tuesday night, and they pulled the money from his account on Thursday morning. Also know which type you want (Roth or regular) before you start. Also make sure you specify that the money is for 2013 not 2014." }, { "docid": "70730", "title": "", "text": "With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals." }, { "docid": "27495", "title": "", "text": "There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it." }, { "docid": "411034", "title": "", "text": "I wrote an article about this a while ago with detailed instructions, so I'll link to it here. Here's a snippet about how to use the Roth IRA loophole and report it properly: You don’t have any Traditional/Rollover IRA at all. You deposit up to the yearly maximum (currently $5500) into a traditional IRA. In your case, you re-characterized, which means you essentially deposited. The fact that it lost money may help you later if you have extra amounts in Traditional IRA. You convert your traditional IRA to become Roth IRA ($5500 change designation from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA). You fill IRS form 8606 and attach it to your yearly tax return, no tax due. You have a fully funded Roth IRA account. If you have amounts in the Traditional IRA in excess to what you contributed last year - it becomes a bit more complicated and you need to prorate. See my article for a detailed example. On the form 8606 you fill the numbers as they are. You deposited to IRA 5500, you converted 5100, your $400 loss is lost (unless you have more money in IRA from elsewhere). If you completely distribute your IRA, you can deduct the $400 on your Schedule A, if you itemize." }, { "docid": "53028", "title": "", "text": "\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \"\"loophole\"\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\"" }, { "docid": "396257", "title": "", "text": "All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k)." } ]

[ { "docid": "250164", "title": "", "text": "When a stock is going to become public there's a level of analysis required to figure out the range of IPO price that makes sense. For a company that's somewhat mature, and has a sector to compare it to, you can come up with a range that would be pretty close. For the recent linkedin, it's tougher to price a somewhat unique company, running at a loss, in a market rich with cash looking for the next great deal. If one gives this any thought, an opening price that's so far above the IPO price represents a failure of the underwriters to price it correctly. It means the original owners just sold theirvshares for far less than the market thought they were worth on day one. The day of IPO the stock opens similar to how any stock would open at 9:30, there are bids and asks and a price at which supply (the ask) and demand (bid) balance. For this IPO, it would appear that there were enough buyers to push the price to twice the anticipated open and it's maintained that level since. It's possible to have a different system in which a Dutch auction is used to make the shares public, in theory this can work, it's just not used commonly." } ]

[ { "docid": "550643", "title": "", "text": "If you can afford the cost and risk of 100 shares of stock, then just sell a put option. If you can only afford a few shares, you can still use the information the options market is trying to give you -- see below. A standing limit order to buy a stock is essentially a synthetic short put option position. [1] So deciding on a stock limit order price is the same as valuing an option on that stock. Options (and standing limit orders) are hard to value, and the generally accepted math for doing so -- the Black-Scholes-Merton framework -- is also generally accepted to be wrong, because of black swans. So rather than calculate a stock buy limit price yourself, it's simpler to just sell a put at the put's own midpoint price, accepting the market's best estimate. Options market makers' whole job (and the purpose of the open market) is price discovery, so it's easier to let them fight it out over what price options should really be trading at. The result of that fight is valuable information -- use it. Sell a 1-month ATM put option every month until you get exercised, after which time you'll own 100 shares of stock, purchased at: This will typically give you a much better cost basis (several dollars better) versus buying the stock at spot, and it offloads the valuation math onto the options market. Meanwhile you get to keep the cash from the options premiums as well. Disclaimer: Markets do make mistakes. You will lose money when the stock drops more than the option market's own estimate. If you can't afford 100 shares, or for some reason still want to be in the business of creating synthetic options from pure stock limit orders, then you could maybe play around with setting your stock purchase bid price to (approximately): See your statistics book for how to set ndev -- 1 standard deviation gives you a 30% chance of a fill, 2 gives you a 5% chance, etc. Disclaimer: The above math probably has mistakes; do your own work. It's somewhat invalid anyway, because stock prices don't follow a normal curve, so standard deviations don't really mean a whole lot. This is where market makers earn their keep (or not). If you still want to create synthetic options using stock limit orders, you might be able to get the options market to do more of the math for you. Try setting your stock limit order bid equal to something like this: Where put_strike is the strike price of a put option for the equity you're trading. Which option expiration and strike you use for put_strike depends on your desired time horizon and desired fill probability. To get probability, you can look at the delta for a given option. The relationship between option delta and equity limit order probability of fill is approximately: Disclaimer: There may be math errors here. Again, do your own work. Also, while this method assumes option markets provide good estimates, see above disclaimer about the markets making mistakes." }, { "docid": "449280", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as \"\"sell to open\"\" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are. As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price.\"" }, { "docid": "170628", "title": "", "text": "So how often do investors really lose money? The short answer is, every day. Let's first examine your assumptions: If the price of the share gets lower, the investor can just wait until it gets higher. What are the chances that it won't forever, or for years? There are many stocks whose price goes down and then down further and then to zero. The most apparent example is, of course, Enron. The stock went from about $90 per share to zero in about 18 months. For it to have been sold at $90, obviously, someone had to buy it. Almost no matter where they sold it, they lost money. If they didn't sell it, when the stock was worthless, they lost money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#/media/File:EnronStockPriceAugust2000toJanuary2001.svg There are more modern examples of companies that are declining in a rapidly changing market. For example, Sears Holdings is getting beat down by Amazon and many other on-line retailers. I suspect that if you buy it today and wait for it to go higher, you will be disappointed. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ASHLD&ei=E8_fWIjWGsSGmAGx7b_IAw The more common way to lose money is to either not have a plan or not stick to the plan. Disciplined investors typically plan to buy quality stocks at a fair price and hold them long enough for increasing sales and profits to bring the stock price up. If, later, he hears a bit of bad news about his stock and decides to sell out of panic or fear and become a trader instead of keeping to the plan to remain a disciplined investor, he is likely to lose money. He will lose because no-one can predict accurately that a stock is going down and will never recover; nor can he predict accurately when a stock is going up and will never falter. The chance of bankruptcy (especially for huge companies like Apple) is really low, as I see it, but I may be wrong. Thousands of people lost billions of dollars thinking that about Enron, too. I too believe Apple is a fine stock with excellent prospects, but technology changes and markets change. Twenty or thirty years from now, it may be a different case." }, { "docid": "288848", "title": "", "text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"" }, { "docid": "120611", "title": "", "text": "(Note: I am omitting the currency units. While I strongly suspect it's US$ I don't know from the chart. The system works the same no matter what the currency.) A call or a put is the right to sell (put) or buy (call) shares at a certain price on a certain day. This is why you see a whole range of prices. Not all possible stock values are represented, the number of possibilities has to be kept reasonable. In this case the choices are even units, for an expensive stock they may be spaced even farther apart than this. The top of the chart says it's for June. It's actually the third Friday in the month, June 15th in this case. Thus these are bets on how the stock will move in the next 10 days. While the numbers are per share you can only trade options in lots of 100. The left side of the chart shows calls. Suppose you sell a call at 19 (the top of the chart) The last such trade would have gotten you a premium of 9.70 per share (the flip side of this is when the third friday rolls around it will most likely be exercised and they'll be paying you only 19 a share for a stock now trading at something over 26.) Note the volume, bid and ask columns though--you're not going to get 9.70 for such a call as there is no buyer. The most anybody is offering at present is 7.80 a share. Now, lets look farther down in the chart--say, a strike price of 30. The last trade was only .10--people think it's very unlikely that FB will rise above 30 to make this option worthwhile and thus you get very little for being willing to sell at that price. If FB stays at 26 the option will expire worthless and go away. If it's up to 31 when the 15th rolls around they'll exercise the option, take your shares and pay you 30 for them. Note that you already gave permission for the trade by selling the call, you can't back out later if it becomes a bad deal. Going over to the other side of the chart with the puts: Here the transaction goes the other way, come the 15th they have the option of selling you the shares for the strike price. Lets look at the same values we did before. 19? There's no trading, you can't do it. 30? Here you will collect 3.20 for selling the put. Come the 15th they have the right to sell you the stock for 30 a share. If it's still 26 they're certainly going to do so, but if it's up to 31 it's worthless and you pocket the 3.20 Note that you will normally not be allowed to sell a call if you don't own the shares in question. This is a safety measure as the risk in selling a call without the stock is infinite. If the stock somehow zoomed up to 10,000 when the 15th rolls around you would have to come up with the shares and the only way you could get them is buy them on the open market--you would have to come up with a million dollars. If there simply aren't enough shares available to cover the calls the result is catastrophic--whoever owns the shares simply gets to dictate terms to you. (And in the days of old this sometimes happened.)" }, { "docid": "265365", "title": "", "text": "There are several reasons it is not recommended to trade stocks pre- or post-market, meaning outside of RTH (regular trading hours). Since your question is not very detailed I have to assume you trade with a time horizon of at least more than a day, meaning you do not trade intra-day. If this is true, all of the above points are a non-issue for you and a different set of points becomes important. As a general rule, using (3) is the safest regardless of what and how you trade because you get price guarantee in trade for execution guarantee. In the case of mid to longer term trading (1 week+) any of those points is viable, depending on how you want to do things, what your style is and what is the most comfortable for you. A few remarks though: (2) are market orders, so if the open is quite the ride and you are in the back of the execution queue, you can get significant slippage. (1) may require (live) data of the post-market session, which is often not easy to come by for the entire US stock universe. Depending on your physical execution method (phone, fax, online), you may lack accurate information of the post-market. If you want to execute orders based on RTH and only want to do that after hours because of personal schedule constraints, this is not really important. Personally I would always recommend (3), independent of the use case because it allows you more control over your orders and their fills. TL;DR: If you are trading long-term it does not really matter. If you go down to the intra-day level of holding time, it becomes relevant." }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "567034", "title": "", "text": "You want to buy when the stock market is at an all-time low for that day. Unfortunately, you don't know the lowest time until the end of the day, and then you, uh can't buy the stock... Now the stock market is not random, but for your case, we can say that effectively, it is. So, when should you buy the stock to hopefully get the lowest price for the day? You should wait for 37% of the day, and then buy when it is lower than it has been for all of that day. Here is a quick example (with fake data): We have 18 points, and 37% of 18 is close to 7. So we discard the first 7 points - and just remember the lowest of those 7. We bear in mind that the lowest for the first 37% was 5. Now we wait until we find a stock which is lower than 5, and we buy at that point: This system is optimal for buying the stock at the lowest price for the day. Why? We want to find the best position to stop automatically ignoring. Why 37%? We know the answer to P(Being in position n) - it's 1/N as there are N toilets, and we can select just 1. Now, what is the chance we select them, given we're in position n? The chance of selecting any of the toilets from 0 to K is 0 - remember we're never going to buy then. So let's move on to the toilets from K+1 and onwards. If K+1 is better than all before it, we have this: But, K+1 might not be the best price from all past and future prices. Maybe K+2 is better. Let's look at K+2 For K+2 we have K/K+1, for K+3 we have K/K+2... So we have: This is a close approximation of the area under 1/x - especially as x → ∞ So 0 + 0 + ... + (K/N) x (1/K + 1/K+1 + 1/K+2 ... + 1/N-1) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) and so P(K) ≈ (K/N) x ln(N/K) Now to simplify, say that x = K/N We can graph this, and find the maximum point so we know the maximum P(K) - or we can use calculus. Here's the graph: Here's the calculus: To apply this back to your situation with the stocks, if your stock updates every 30 seconds, and is open between 09:30 and 16:00, we have 6.5 hours = 390 minutes = 780 refreshes. You should keep track of the lowest price for the first 289 refreshes, and then buy your stock on the next best price. Because x = K/N, the chance of you choosing the best price is 37%. However, the chance of you choosing better than the average stock is above 50% for the day. Remember, this method just tries to mean you don't loose money within the day - if you want to try to minimise losses within the whole trading period, you should scale this up, so you wait 37% of the trading period (e.g. 37% of 3 months) and then select. The maths is taken from Numberphile - Mathematical Way to Choose a Toilet. Finally, one way to lose money a little slower and do some good is with Kiva.org - giving loans to people is developing countries. It's like a bank account with a -1% interest - which is only 1% lower than a lot of banks, and you do some good. I have no affiliation with them." }, { "docid": "327952", "title": "", "text": "The offering price is the price at which that IPO is, well, offered. Think of it as a suggested retail price. The opening price is the actual price at which trading begins, on a particular day, for a stock. That price depends on demand/overnight-orders/what-have-you. Think of this as the actual price in the store." }, { "docid": "489933", "title": "", "text": "\"I would have to disagree with the other responders. In technical analysis of stock charts, various short and long term moving averages are used to give an indication of the trend of the stock in the short and long term, as compared to the current price. I would prefer to use the term moving average (MA) rather than average as the MA is recalculated every day (or at appropriate frequencies for your data) on the period you are using. I would also expand on the term \"\"moving average\"\". There are two that are commonly used Going back to the question, of the value of this number, For example if the current price is above the 200 day EWMA and also above the 30 day EWMA, then the stock is broadly trending upwards. Conversely if current price is below the 200 day EWMA and also below the 30 day EWMA, then the stock is broadly trending downwards. These numbers are chosen on the basis of the market you are trading in, the volatility and other factors. For another example of how a number of moving averages are used together, please have a read of Daryl Guppy's Multiple Moving Average, though this does not use moving averages as large as 200 days.\"" }, { "docid": "176161", "title": "", "text": "\"To understand the VXX ETF, you need to understand VIX futures, to understand VIX futures you need to understand VIX, to understand VIX you need to understand options pricing formulas such as the \"\"Black Scholes\"\" formula Those are your prerequisites. Learn at your own pace. Short Answer: When you buy VXX you are buying the underlying are front month VIX futures. Limited by the supply of the ETF's NAV (Net Asset Value) units. It is assumed that the ETF manager is actually buying and selling more VIX front month futures to back the underlying ETF. Long Answer: Assume nobody knows what an options contract should be worth. Therefore formulas have been devised to standardize how to price an options contract. The Black-Scholes formula is widely used, one of the variables in this formula is \"\"Implied Volatility\"\", which basically accounts for the mispricing of options when the other variables (Intrinsic Value, delta, gamma, theta...) don't completely explain how much the option is worth. People are willing to pay more for options when the perception is that they will be more profitable, \"\"implied volatility\"\" tracks these changes in an option's demand, where the rest of the black-scholes formula creates a price for an option that will always be the same. Each stock in the market that also trades standardized options will have implied volatility which can be computed from the price of those options. The \"\"Volatility Index\"\" (VIX), looks at the implied volatility of MANY STOCK's options contracts. Specifically the \"\"implied volatility of out the money puts on the S&P 500\"\". If you don't know what that quoted part of the sentence means, then you have at least five other individual questions to ask before you re-read this answer and understand the relevance of these followup questions: Why would people buy out-the-money puts on the S&P 500? Why would people pay more for out-the-money puts on the S&P 500 on some days and pay less for them on other days? This is really the key to the whole puzzle. Anyway, now that we have this data, people wanted to speculate on the future value of the VIX. So VIX futures contracts began trading and with it there came a liquid market. There doesn't need to be anything physical to back a financial product anymore. A lot of people don't trade futures, retail investors have practically only heard of \"\"the stock market\"\". So one investment bank decided to make a fund that only holds VIX futures that expire within a month. (front month futures). They split that fund up into shares and listed it on the stock market, like alchemy the VXX was formed. Volatility studies are fascinating, and get way more complex than this now that the VXX ETF also has liquid options contracts trading on it too, and there are leveraged VIX ETF funds that also trade options\"" }, { "docid": "253926", "title": "", "text": "\"The dow jones is an index of 30 stocks that's weighted based on the price per share of these stocks. To calculate the DJIA, the sum of the prices of all 30 stocks is divided by a divisor, the Dow Divisor. The divisor is adjusted in case of stock splits, spinoffs or similar structural changes, to ensure that such events do not in themselves alter the numerical value of the DJIA. Prices are the result of supply and demand. Demand is defined as simply as \"\"I want this badly enough to pay cash for it\"\", \"\"supply is \"\"I own this and don't want to own it, therefore I'll sell it\"\" When investors go about deciding they'd like to buy some stock from people who own it and are wanting to sell it, a market is generated and a price both are willing to sell/buy at is found. If the price is too high/low, you won't sell or buy. The price has to be \"\"right\"\" based on your own personal valuation. Since these trades are done through an exchange and are so common, literally millions of shares are traded per day, you get the best price available at that moment for your shares. If person A is only willing to give you 100 dollars and person B is willing to give you 100.01, screw person A. I'm selling shares to person B. When this done on a macro-level (millions of shares traded per day) the exchanges will track and make public the \"\"price movement\"\" of what the market is willing to give for each and every publicly traded stock. TLDR: SUPPLY AND DEMAND. DOW USES THEIR OWN METHODS.\"" }, { "docid": "190619", "title": "", "text": "Is it possible that mutual funds account for a significant portion of this volume. Investors may decide to buy or sell anytime within a 24 hour period, but the transaction only happened at the close of the market. Therefore at 3:59 pm the mutual fund knows if they will be buying or selling stocks that day. As nws pointed out the non-market hours are longer and therefore accumulate more news event. Some financial news is specifically given during the time the market is closed. Therefore the reaction to that news has to either be in the morning when the market opens or in the late afternoon if they are trying to anticipate the news. Also in the US market the early morning trader may be reacting to European market activities." }, { "docid": "146632", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\"" }, { "docid": "73321", "title": "", "text": "The stock market is generally a long term investment platform. The share prices reflect more the companies potential to be profitable in the future rather than its actual value. Companies that have good potential can over perform their actual value. We saw this regularly in the early days of the internet prior to the .com bust. Companies would go up exponentially based on their idea's and potential. Investors learned from that and are demanding more these days. As a result companies that do not show growth potential go down. Companies that show growth and potential (apple and google for 2 easy examples) continue to go up. Many companies have specific days where employees can buy and sell stocks. there are minor ripples in the market on these days as the demand and supply are temporarily altered by a large segment of the owner base making trades. For this reason some companies have a closed pool that is only open to inside trades that then executes the orders over time so that the effect is minimized on the actual stock price. This is not happening with face book. Instead many of the investors are dumping their stock directly into the market. These are savvy investors and if there was potential for profit remaining you would not see the full scale exodus from the stock. The fact that it is visible is scaring off investors itself. I can not think of another instance that has gone like facebook, especially one that was called so accurately by many industry pundits." }, { "docid": "547553", "title": "", "text": "\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "260085", "title": "", "text": "\"Some technical indicators (e.g. Williams %R) indicate whether the market is overbought or oversold. ... Every time a stock or commodity is bought, it is also sold. And vice versa. So how can anything ever be over-bought or over-sold? But I'm sure I'm missing something. What is it? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how equity markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers, who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for Market Makers to accumulate a large number of shares, without end-investors being involved on both sides of the transaction. This is one example of how instruments can be over-bought or over-sold. Since Williams %R creates over-bought and over-sold signals based on historical averages of open / close prices, perhaps it's better to think of these terms as \"\"over-valued\"\" and \"\"under-valued\"\". Of course, there could be good reason for instruments to open or close outside their expected ranges, so Williams %R is just a tool to give you clues... not a real evaluation of the instrument's true value.\"" }, { "docid": "276933", "title": "", "text": "I don't understand why businesses that supposedly offer a legitimate product decide to host 3rd party code. Is their actual product so worthless that they need the extra few cents from ad revenue? And there are open source analytic packages that tell you how many times people click on things on your web page and how they were referred. I don't see the reason behind relying on other packages unless you really need to compare yourselves to the competition-- which probably doesn't come up in boardroom meetings every day." }, { "docid": "327974", "title": "", "text": "It does sometimes open one day the same as it closed the previous day. Take a look at ESCA, it closed October 29th at 4.50, at opened November 1st at 4.50. It's more likely to change prices overnight than it is between two successive ticks during the day, because a lot more time passes, in which news can come out, and in which people can reevaluate the stock." } ]

[ { "docid": "187583", "title": "", "text": "\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Your value is compounded as you measure the performance of the investment over time. Dividends do not participate in the compounding unless you reinvest them. Compound interest is just the principle of compounding applied to an amount owed, either by you, or to you. You have a balance with which a certain percentage is calculated each period and is added to the balance. The new balance is used to calculate the next period's interest, which again adds to the balance, etc. Obviously, it's better to be on the receiving end of a compound interest calculation than on the paying end. Interest bearing investments, like bonds, pay simple interest. Like stock dividends, you would have to invest the interest in something else in order to get a compounding effect. When using a basic calculator tool for stocks, you would include the expected average annual growth rate plus the expected annual dividend rate as your \"\"interest\"\" rate. For bonds you would use the coupon rate plus the expected rate of return on whatever you put the interest into as the \"\"interest\"\" rate. Factoring in risk, you would just have to pick a different rate for a simple calculator, or use a more complex tool that allows for more variables over time. Believe it or not, this is where you would start seeing all that calculus homework pay off!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "43683", "title": "", "text": "If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities." }, { "docid": "496899", "title": "", "text": "The really simple answer is that compound interest is compound not linear. Money invested for longer earns more interest, and the sooner you start investing, the longer it has to earn interest. These ideas come out of pension investment where 65 is the usual retirement age and what you invest in the 1st ten years of your pension (or any other compound interest fund) accounts for over 50% of what you will get out. 25 to 65 is forty years and $100 invested at 7% for 40 years is $1400. $100 invested every year for 40 years the pot would be worth just under $20,000. At 30 years, it would be worth under $10,000, and at 20 years it would be worth only $4099. If you double your investment amount every 10 years you would have invested $15700, and the pot would be worth $45,457. Do exactly the same but starting at 35 instead of 25 and your pot would only be worth $14,200." }, { "docid": "491716", "title": "", "text": "\"I want to elaborate on some of the general points made in the other answers, since there is a lot that is special or unique to the biotech industry. By definition, a high P/E ratio for an industry can stem from 1) high prices/demand for companies in the industry, and/or 2) low earnings in the industry. On average, the biotech industry exhibits both high demand (and therefore high prices) and low earnings, hence its average P/E ratio. My answer is somewhat US-specific (mainly the parts about the FDA) but the rest of the information is relevant elsewhere. The biotech industry is a high-priced industry because for several reasons, some investors consider it an industry with significant growth potential. Also, bringing a drug to market requires a great deal of investment over several years, at minimum. A new drug may turn out to be highly profitable in the future, but the earliest the company could begin earning this profit is after the drug nears completion of Phase III clinical trials and passes the FDA approval process. Young, small-cap biotech companies may therefore have low or negative earnings for extended periods because they face high R&D costs throughout the lengthy process of bringing their first drug (or later drugs) to market. This process can be on the order of decades. These depressed earnings, along with high demand for the companies, either through early investors, mergers and acquisitions, etc. can lead to high P/E ratios. I addressed in detail several of the reasons why biotech companies are in demand now in another answer, but I want to add some information about the role of venture capital in the biotech industry that doesn't necessarily fit into the other answer. Venture capital is most prevalent in tech industries because of their high upfront capital requirements, and it's even more important for young biotech companies because they require sophisticated computing and laboratory equipment and highly-trained staff before they can even begin their research. These capital requirement are only expected to rise as subfields like genetic engineering become more widespread in the industry; when half the staff of a young company have PhD's in bioinformatics and they need high-end computing power to evaluate their models, you can see why the initial costs can be quite high. To put this in perspective, in 2010, \"\"venture capitalists invested approximately $22 billion into nearly 2,749 companies.\"\" That comes out to roughly $7.8M per company. The same year (I've lost the article that mentioned this, unfortunately), the average venture capital investment in the biotech industry was almost double that, at $15M. Since many years can elapse between initial investment in a biotech company and the earliest potential for earnings, these companies may require large amounts of early investment to get them through this period. It's also important to understand why the biotech industry, as a whole, may exhibit low earnings for a long period after the initial investment. Much of this has to do with the drug development process and the phases of clinical trials. The biotech industry isn't 100% dedicated to pharmaceutical development, but the overlap is so significant that the following information is more than applicable. Drug development usually goes through three phases: Drug discovery - This is the first research stage, where companies look for new chemical compounds that might have pharmaceutical applications. Compounds that pass this stage are those that are found to be effective against some biological target, although their effects on humans may not be known. Pre-clinical testing - In this stage, the company tests the drug for toxicity to major organs and potential side effects on other parts of the body. Through laboratory and animal testing, the company determines that the drug, in certain doses, is likely safe for use in humans. Once a drug passes the tests in this stage, the company submits an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA. This application contains results from the animal/laboratory tests, details of the manufacturing process, and detailed proposals for human clinical trials should the FDA approve the company's IND application. Clinical trials - If the FDA approves the IND application, the company moves forward with clinical trials in human, which are themselves divided into several stages. \"\"Post-clinical phase\"\" / ongoing trials - This stage is sometimes considered Phase IV of the clinical trials stage. Once the drug has been approved by the FDA or other regulatory agency, the company can ramp up its marketing efforts to physicians and consumers. The company will likely continue conducting clinical trials, as well as monitoring data on the widespread use of the drug, to both watch for unforeseen side effects or opportunities for off-label use. I included such detailed information on the drug development process because it's vitally important to realize that each and every step in this process has a cost, both in time and money. Most biopharm companies won't begin to realize profits from a successful drug until near the end of Phase III clinical trials. The vast R&D costs, in both time and money, required to bring an effective drug through all of these steps and into the marketplace can easily depress earnings for many years. Also, keep in mind that most of the compounds identified in the drug discovery stage won't become profitable pharmaceutical products. A company may identify 5,000 compounds that show promise in the drug discovery stage. On average, less than ten of these compounds will qualify for human tests. These ten drugs may start human trials, but only around 20% of them will actually pass Phase III clinical trials and be submitted for FDA approval. The pre-clinical testing stage alone takes an average of 10 years to complete for a single drug. All this time, the company isn't earning profit on that drug. The linked article also goes into detail about recruitment delays in human trials, scheduling problems, and attrition rates for each phase of the drug development process. All of these items add both temporal and financial costs to the process and have the potential to further depress earnings. And finally, a drug could be withdrawn from the market even after it passes the drug development process. When this occurs, however, it's usually the fault of the company for poor trial design or suppression of data (as in the case of Vioxx). I want to make one final point to keep in mind when looking at financial statistics like the P/E ratio, as well as performance and risk metrics. Different biotech funds don't necessarily represent the industry in the same way, since not all of these funds invest in the same firms. For example, the manager of Fidelity's Select Biotechnology Portfolio (FBIOX) has stated that he prefers to weight his fund towards medium to large cap companies that already have established cash flows. Like all biopharm companies, these firms face the R&D costs associated with the drug development process, but the cost to their bottom line isn't as steep because they already have existing cash flows to sustain their business and accumulated human capital that should (ideally) make the development process more efficient for newer drugs. You can also see differences in composition between funds with similar strategies. The ishares Nasdaq Biotech Index Fund (IBB) also contains medium to large cap companies, but the composition of its top 10 holdings is slightly different from that of FBIOX. These differences can affect any metric (although some might not be present for FBIOX, since it's a mutual fund) as well as performance. For example, FBIOX includes Ironwood Pharmaceuticals (IRWD) in its top 10 holdings, while IBB doesn't. Although IBB does include IRWD because it's a major NASDAQ biotech stock, the difference in holdings is important for an industry where investors' perception of a stock can hinge on a single drug approval. This is a factor even for established companies. In general, I want to emphasize that a) funds that invest more heavily in small-cap biotech stocks may exhibit higher P/E ratios for the reasons stated above, and b) even funds with similar mixes of stocks may have somewhat different performance because of the nature of risk in the biotech industry. There are also funds like Vanguard's Healthcare ETF (VHT) that have significant exposure to the biotech industry, including small-cap firms, but also to major players in the pharmaceutical market like Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, etc. Since buyouts of small-cap companies by large players are a major factor in the biotech industry, these funds may exhibit different financial statistics because they reflect both the high prices/low earnings of young companies and the more standard prices/established earnings of larger companies. Don't interpret anything I stated above as investment advice; I don't want anything I say to be construed as any form of investment recommendation, since I'm not making one.\"" }, { "docid": "474705", "title": "", "text": "\"Time Value of Money - The simple calculation for this is FV = PV * (1+r)^N which reads The Future Value is equal to the Present Value times 1 plus the interest rate multiplied by itself by the number of periods that will pass. A simple way to look at this is that if interest rates were 5%/yr a dollar would be worth (1.05)^N where N is the number of years passing. The concept of compound interest cannot be separated from the above. Compounding is accounting for the interest on the interest that has accrued in prior periods. If I lend you a dollar at 6% simple interest for 30 years, you would pay me back $1 + $1.80 or $2.80. But - 1.06^30 = 5.74 so that dollar compounded at 6% annually for 30 years is $5.74. Quite a difference. Often, the time value of money is discussed in light of inflation. A dollar today is not the same dollar as 30 years ago or 30 years hence. In fact, inflation has eroded the value of the dollar by a factor of 3 over the past 30 years. An average item costing $100 would now cost $300. So when one invests, at the very least they try to stay ahead of inflation and seek additional return for their risk. One quirk of compounding is the \"\"rule of 72.\"\" This rule states that if you divide the interest rate into the number 72 the result is the number of years to double. So 10% per year will take about 7.2 years to double, 8%, 9 years, etc. It's not 100% precise, but a good \"\"back of napkin\"\" calculation. When people talk about the total payments over the thirty year life of a mortgage, they often ignore the time value of money. That payment even ten years from now has far less value than the same payment today.\"" }, { "docid": "481683", "title": "", "text": "\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\"" }, { "docid": "495717", "title": "", "text": "\"Sorry in advance, but this will be long. Also, it sounds like your friend is a tool. I hope this \"\"friend\"\" is not also your financial advisor... they would be encouraging you to make a very poor investment decision. They also don't know how to do financial math. For what it's worth, I am not wrong. I have correctly answered a set of changing questions as you have asked them... Your friend is answering based on a third, completely different investment model, which you proposed in the edit to your last post. If that's what you meant all along, then you should have been more clear in the questions you were asking. Please let me layout the following: How the previous questions//investment proposals were built How to analyze this current proposal What your other option is Why the other option is best in a 'real world' market The First Question My understanding of the initial proposal was to take out a $10,000 loan, invest the proceeds, and expect to not have any money of your own tied up in this. Because that OP did not specify that this is an interest-only loan (you still haven't in any of your questions), the bank will require you to make payments back to them each month that include principal and interest. Your \"\"friend\"\" is talking about the total interest paid being the only cost of a loan. While that is (almost) true, regardless of what your friend says, significantly more cash is involved in making sure that all the payments are made on time---unless you set up an interest-only loan. But with the set up laid out in this post, and with the assumptions I specified there, the principal payments must be included because the borrower has to pay back the bank and isn't not tying up any of their own money. In that case, my initial analysis is correct--your breakeven is in the low teens for an annual required return. The Second Proposal Your second proposal... before any edits... refined things a little bit, to try to capture the any possible returns by not selling something. As I indicated there, (with what was an exaggerating assumption), the lack of clarity makes for an outlandish required return. The Second Proposal...with edits, or the one proposed above I will get to the one proposed above in a second, but first let me highlight a few problems with your friend's analysis. Simple interest: the only place (in the US at least) that will lend with simple interest is student loans. Any loan that you actually take out will be compound interest. Not an interest only loan: your \"\"friend\"\" is not calculating interest correctly. Since this isn't an interest-only loan, the principal balance will reduce every time you make a payment, by ~$320-$340 each month. This substantially reduces the total interest paid, to $272.79 over the total 24 months. \"\"Returns\"\": I don't know what country, or what business your friend works in, but \"\"returns\"\" are a very ambiguous concept. Investopedia defines returns as gains or losses. (I wish I could inhabit the lala land that your friend lives in when returns are always positive). TheFreeDictionary.com defines a return for finance as \"\"The change in the value of a portfolio over an evaluation period, including any distributions made from the portfolio during that period.\"\" When you have not made it clear that any other money is being used in this investment plan (as was the case in scheme #1 and scheme #2a,) the loan still has to be paid. So, clearly the principal must be included in the return calculations. How to evaluate this proposed investment scheme Key dimensions: Loan ($8,000 ... 24 months ... 0.27% monthly rate... monthly compounding... no loan origination fees) Monthly payment (PMT in Excel yields $344.70). Investment capital (starting = $8,000) Monthly Return (Investment yields... we hope it's positive!) Your monthly contribution from your salary Taxes = 10%. Transaction Fees = $20 Go and lookup how to build an amortization table for a loan in Excel. Your life will be infinitely better for it. Now, you get this loan set up and invested into something... (it costs $20 to buy the assets). So you've got $7980 chugging away earning interest. I calculate that your break even, with you paying in $344.70 of your own money each month is 1.81% annually, or 3.42% over the 24 month life of this scheme. That is using monthly compound interest for the payments, because that's what the real world would use, and using monthly compounding of the investments' returns. Your total interest expense would be $272.79. This seems feasible. But let's talk about what your other option is, given that you're ready to spend $344.70 each month on an investment. Your other option I understand the appeal of getting $8,000... right away... to invest in something. But the risk behind this is that if the market goes down (and markets do) you're stuck paying a fixed amount for your loan that is now worth less money. Your other option is to take your $344.70, and invest it step-by-step. (You would want to skip a month or two buying assets in the market, so that you can lessen transaction costs). This has two advantages: (1) you save yourself $272 in interest. (2) When the market goes down, you still win. With this strategy, you still win when the market goes down because of what is commonly called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". When the market is up, your investments are also up. When the market goes down, your previous investments decrease in value but you can invest new money at the lower rates. Why the step-by-step, invest your own money strategy is better At low rates (when you're looking for your break-even), the step-by-step model outperforms the loan. At higher rates of return (~4% + per year), you get the benefit of having the borrowed money earning more gains. In fact, for every continuous (meaning set... not changing month-to-month) interest rate that you can dream up that is greater than about 4% per year, the borrowed money earns more. At 10% per year, the borrowed money will earn about $500 more over the 2 years than your step by step investment would. BUT I recognize that you might feel like the market will always go up. That's what everyone thinks. And that's alright. But have one really bad month, or a couple of just-not-great-months, and your fixed 'loan' portfolio will underperform. Have a few really bad months, and your portfolio could be substantially reduced in value... but you would still be paying the same amount for it each month. And if that happened (say your assets declined -3% in 3 of the 24 months...) You'd be losing money relative to the step-by-step portfolio.\"" }, { "docid": "472646", "title": "", "text": "Using the standard loan formula with 21% APR nominal, compounded weekly. Calculate an adjusted loan start value by adding 31 - 7 = 24 extra days of daily interest (by converting the nominal compounded weekly rate to a daily rate). For details see Converting between compounding frequencies Applying the standard formula r (pv)/(1 - (1 + r)^-n) = 189.80 So every weekly payment will be 189.80 Alternatively Directly arriving at the same result by using the loan formula described here, The extension x is 31 - 7 = 24 daily fractions of an average week (where 7 daily fractions of an average week equal one average week). As before, the weekly payment will be 189.80 Both methods are effectively the same calculation." }, { "docid": "512458", "title": "", "text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"" }, { "docid": "283893", "title": "", "text": "If this is the case, then shouldn't the difference between their annualized returns be same year on year? In general yes, however there difference has a compounding effect. i.e. if the difference if 5% first year, this money is invested and it would generate more of the said returns. However in reality as the corpus size of direct funds is very small, there difference is not very significant as other factors come into play." }, { "docid": "376246", "title": "", "text": "\"You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Cash flow is the life blood of any business. When banks loan money, they are expecting a steady cash flow back. If you just pay back \"\"whenever\"\" - the bank has no idea what they'll be getting back month-to-month. When they can set the terms of the loan (length, rate, payment amount), they know how much cash flow they expect to get. What does [the term of the loan] even mean and what difference in the world does it make? In addition to the predictable cash flow needs above, setting a term for the loan determines how long their money will be tied up in the loan. The longer a bank has money tied up in a loan, the more risk there is that the borrower will default, so the bank will require a greater return (interest rate) for that extra risk. What you have described is effectively a revolving line of credit. The bank let you borrow money arbitrarily, charges you a certain rate of interest, and you can pay them back at your schedule. If you pay all of the interest for that month, everything else goes to principal. If you don't pay all of the interest, that interest is added to the balance and gets interest compounded on top of it. Both are perfectly viable business models, and bank employ them both, but they meed different needs for the bank. Fixed-term loans help stabilize cash flow, and lines of credit provide convenience for customers.\"" }, { "docid": "581776", "title": "", "text": "So my Question is this, in reality is investment in equities like the stock market even remotely resemble the type of growth one would expect if investing the same money in an account with compounding interest? Generally no as there is a great deal of volatility when it comes to investing in stocks that isn't well represented by simply taking the compounded annual growth rate and assuming things always went up and never went down. This is adding in the swings that the market will take that at times may be a bit of a rude surprise to some people. Are all these prognosticators vastly underestimating how much savers need to be socking away by overstating what is realistic in terms of growth in investment markets? Possibly but not probably. Until we know definitively what the returns are from various asset classes, I'm not sure I'd want to claim that people need to save a ton more. I'll agree that the model misses how wide the swings are, not necessarily that the averages are too low or overstated." }, { "docid": "111033", "title": "", "text": "\"Bonds are valued based on all of this, using the concept of the \"\"time value of money\"\". Simply stated, money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. Case in point: let's say the par value of a bond is $100, and will mature 10 years from this date (these are common terms for most bonds, though the U.S. Treasury has a variety of bonds with varying par values and maturation periods), with a 0% coupon rate (nothing's paid out prior to maturity). If the company or government issuing the bonds needs one million dollars, and the people buying the bonds are expecting a 5% rate of return on their investment, then each bond would only sell for about $62, and the bond issuer would have to sell a par value of $1.62 million in bonds to get its $1m now. These numbers are based on equations that calculate the \"\"future value\"\" of an investment made now, and conversely the \"\"present value\"\" of a future return. Back to that time value of money concept, money now (that you're paying to buy the bond) is worth more than money later (that you'll get back at maturity), so you will expect to be returned more than you invested to account for this time difference. The percentage of rate of return is known as the \"\"yield\"\" or the \"\"discount rate\"\" depending on what you're calculating, what else you take into consideration when defining the rate (like inflation), and whom you talk to. Now, that $1.62m in par value may be hard for the bond issuer to swallow. The issuer is effectively paying interest on interest over the lifetime of the bond. Instead, many issuers choose to issue \"\"coupon bonds\"\", which have a \"\"coupon rate\"\" determining the amount of a \"\"coupon payment\"\". This can be equated pretty closely with you making interest-only payments on a credit card balance; each period in which interest is compounded, you pay the amount of interest that has accrued, to avoid this compounding effect. From an accounting standpoint, the coupon rate lowers the amount of real monies paid; the same $1m in bonds, maturing in 10 years with a 5% expected rate of return, but with a 5% coupon rate, now only requires payments totalling $1.5m, and that half-million in interest is paid $50k at a time annually (or $25k semi-annually). But, from a finance standpoint, because the payments made in the first few years are worth more than the payments made closer to and at maturity, the present value of all these coupon payments (plus the maturity payout) is higher than if the full payout happened at maturity, and so the future value of the total investment is higher. Coupon rates on bonds thus allow a bond issuer to plan a bond package in less complicated terms. If you as a small business need $1m for a project, which you will repay in 10 years, and during that time you are willing to tolerate a 5% interest rate on the outstanding money, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1 million worth, to mature in 10 years and a 5% coupon rate. Now, whether the market is willing to accept that rate is up to the market. Right now, they'd be over the moon with that rate, and would be willing to buy the bonds for more than their face value, because the present value would then match the yield they're willing to accept (as in any market system, you as the seller will sell to the highest bidder to get the best price available). If however, they think you are a bad bet, they'll want an even higher rate of return, and so the present value of all coupon and maturity payments will be less than the par value, and so will the purchase price.\"" }, { "docid": "591694", "title": "", "text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"" }, { "docid": "524018", "title": "", "text": "\"First off, the \"\"mortgage interest is tax deductible\"\" argument is a red herring. What \"\"tax deductible\"\" sounds like it means is \"\"if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes\"\". If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means. What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line \"\"income subject to taxation.\"\" Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something \"\"tax deductible\"\" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first. It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan. So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years. The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that. Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say \"\"5 years.\"\" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose? It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way.\"" }, { "docid": "146277", "title": "", "text": "\"Is this legal? Why not? But you might have trouble deducting losses on your taxes, especially if you sell to someone related to you in some way (which is indeed what you're doing). See the added portion below regarding dealing with \"\"related person\"\" (which a sibling is). The state of Maryland has a transfer/recordation tax of 1.5% for each, the buyer and seller. Would this be computed on the appraised or sale value? You should check with the State. In California property taxes are assessed based on sale value, but if the sale value is bogus the assessors have the right to recalculate. Since you're selling to family, the assessors will likely to intervene and set a more close to \"\"fair market\"\" value on the transaction, but again - check the local law. Will this pose any problem if the buyer needs financing? Likely, banks will be suspicious.Since you're giving a discount to your sibling, it will likely not cause a problem for financing. If it was an unrelated person getting such a discount, it would likely to have raised some questions. Would I be able to deduct a capital loss on my tax return? As I said - it may be a problem. If the transaction is between related people - likely not. Otherwise - not sure. Check with a professional tax adviser (EA or CPA licensed in Maryland). You mentioned in the comment that the buyer is a sibling. IRS Publication 544 has a list of what is considered \"\"related person\"\", and that includes siblings. So the short answer is NO, you will not be able to deduct the loss. The tax treatment is not trivial in this case, and I suggest to have a professional tax adviser guide you on how to proceed. Here's the definition of \"\"related person\"\" from the IRS pub. 544: Members of a family, including only brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters, spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.), and lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). An individual and a corporation if the individual directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. Two corporations that are members of the same controlled group as defined in section 267(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. A trust fiduciary and a corporation if the trust or the grantor of the trust directly or indirectly owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation. A grantor and fiduciary, and the fiduciary and beneficiary, of any trust. Fiduciaries of two different trusts, and the fiduciary and beneficiary of two different trusts, if the same person is the grantor of both trusts. A tax-exempt educational or charitable organization and a person who directly or indirectly controls the organization, or a member of that person's family. A corporation and a partnership if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation and more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership. Two S corporations if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. Two corporations, one of which is an S corporation, if the same persons own more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of each corporation. An executor and a beneficiary of an estate unless the sale or exchange is in satisfaction of a pecuniary bequest. Two partnerships if the same persons directly or indirectly own more than 50% of the capital interests or profits interests in both partnerships. A person and a partnership if the person directly or indirectly owns more than 50% of the capital interest or profits interest in the partnership.\"" }, { "docid": "131696", "title": "", "text": "The short answer is you'd be much better off paying up front in this case. The present value of $2,500 plus 12 $500 monthly payments is $8,128 at a 12% discount rate, which is much higher then the $6,000 you could pay now. The long answer is how you get that present value. How can I use time value of money to find the present value of money if I choose to go with option A? First of all, I'd question your discount rate. A 12% discount rate means that you can safely reinvest the money that you're not spending today at a 12% annual (1% monthly) rate, which seems very high. Normally for short-term spending decisions you'd use a risk-free rate, which would be closer to 1%-2%. However, to discount at 1% monthly you'd just divide each monthly payment by 1 plus the discount rate raised to the power of the number of periods until each payment. So the total is which is $8,127.54 You could also use the NPV function in Excel. It seems like to get an accurate answer the calculation of the interest rate should take into account compounding period as well? Correct, and in the example above the compounding is assumed to be monthly since that's the periodicity of the cash flows. You could calculate it with a different compounding period but it gets much more complicated and probably wouldn't make a significant difference. The discount rate does take compounding into effect, meaning if you saved the $5,628 (the PV of $8,128 minus the $2,500 initial payment), you'd earn 1% interest on $5,628 the first month, $5,128 plus that interest the second month, etc." }, { "docid": "117602", "title": "", "text": "\"Basically, your CC is (if normal) compounded monthly, based on a yearly APR. To calculate the amount of interest you'd pay on each of these accounts in a year, pull up a spreadsheet like Office Excel. Put in your current balance, then multiply it by the annual interest rate divided by 12, and add that quantity to the balance. Subtract any payment you make, and the result is your new balance. You can project this out for several months to get a good estimate of what you'll pay; in accounting or finance terms, what you're creating is an \"\"amortization table\"\". So, with a $10,000 balance, at 13.99% interest and making payments of $200/mo, the amortization table for one year's payments might look like: As you can see, $200 isn't paying down this card very quickly. In one year, you will have paid $2,400, of which $1,332.25 went straight into the bank's pockets in interest charges, reducing your balance by only $1,067.75. Up the payments to $300/mo, and in 1 year you will have paid $3,600, and only been charged $1,252.24 in interest, so you'll have reduced your balance by $2,347.76 to only $7,652.24, which further reduces interest charges down the line. You can track the differences in the Excel sheet and play \"\"what-ifs\"\" very easily to see the ramifications of spending your $5,000 in various ways. Understand that although, for instance, 13.99% may be your base interest rate, if the account has become delinquent, or you made any cash advances or balance transfers, higher or lower interest rates may be charged on a portion of the balance or the entire balance, depending on what's going on with your account; a balance transfer may get 0% interest for a year, then 19.99% interest after that if not paid off. Cash advances are ALWAYS charged at exorbitantly high rates, up to 40% APR. Most credit card bills will include what may be called an \"\"effective APR\"\", which is a weighted average APR of all the various sub-balances of your account and the interest rates they currently have. Understand that your payment first pays off interest accrued during the past cycle, then pays down the principal on the highest-interest portion of the balance first, so if you have made a balance transfer to another card and are using that card for purchases, the only way to avoid interest on the transfer at the post-incentive rates is to pay off the ENTIRE balance in a year. The minimum payment on a credit card USED to be just the amount of accrued interest or sometimes even less; if you paid only the minimum payment, the balance would never decrease (and may increase). In the wake of the 2008 credit crisis, most banks now enforce a higher minimum payment such that you would pay off the balance in between 3 and 5 years by making only minimum payments. This isn't strictly required AFAIK, but because banks ARE required by the CARD Act to disclose the payoff period at the minimum payment (which would be \"\"never\"\" under most previous policies), the higher minimum payments give cardholders hope that as long as they make the minimum payments and don't charge any more to the card, they will get back to zero.\"" }, { "docid": "399511", "title": "", "text": "Teach them that money can help solve most (if not all the problems) in life. If they truly appreciate the value of saving every single penny, eventually they will come to realize that if you don't touch your money (waste it on useless things you don't need such as eating out) that it can grow. Also teach them the value of compounding interest, even a TFSA/high interest savings account with a modest 3-4% annual ROI can be big with yearly additions and no withdrawals for a lifetime. Tell them to take Johnny Appleseed for example. Johnny starts up his TFSA with help from mom and dad at the age of 15, let's say they put in $5000 all together. Now let's say he adds in a modest $2500 to his TFSA every year until he is 55 years old. If the TFSA has an interest rate of 4%, then when he's 55 he'll have over half a million dollars in the bank and he really didn't have to do much besides not touch it." }, { "docid": "91926", "title": "", "text": "\"For the mortgage, you're confusing cause and effect. Loans like mortgages generally have a very simple principle behind them: at any given time, the interest charged at that time is the product of the amount still owing and the interest rate. So for example on a mortgage of $100,000, at an interest rate of 5%, the interest charged for the first year would be $5,000. If you pay the interest plus another $20,000 after the first year, then in the second year the interest charge would be $4,000. This view is a bit of an over-simplification, but it gets the basic point across. [In practice you would actually make payments through the year so the actual balance that interest is charged on would vary. Different mortgages would also treat compounding slightly differently, e.g. the interest might be added to the mortgage balance daily or monthly.] So, it's natural that the interest charged on a mortgage reduces year-by-year as you pay off some of the mortgage. Mortgages are typically setup to have constant payments over the life of the mortgage (an \"\"amortisation schedule\"\"), calculated so that by the end of the planned mortgage term, you'll have paid off all of the principal. It's a straightforward effect of the way that interest works in general that these schedules incorporate higher interest payments early on in the mortgage, because that's the time when you owe more money. If you go for a 15-year mortgage, each payment will involve you paying off significantly more principal each time than with a 30-year mortgage for the same balance - because with a 15-year mortgage, you need to hit 0 after 15 years, not 30. So since you pay off the principal faster, you naturally pay less interest even when you just compare the first 15 years. In your case what you're talking about is paying off the mortgage using the 30-year payments for the first 15 years, and then suddenly paying off the remaining principal with a lump sum. But when you do that, overall you're still paying off principal later than if it had been a 15-year mortgage to begin with, so you should be charged more interest, because what you've done is not the same as having a 15-year mortgage. You still will save the rest of the interest on the remaining 15 years of the term, unless there are pre-payment penalties. For the car loan I'm not sure what is happening. Perhaps it's the same situation and you just misunderstood how it was explained. Or maybe it's setup with significant pre-payment penalties so you genuinely don't save anything by paying early.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "96121", "title": "", "text": "\"If you mean, If I invest, say, $1000 in a stock that is growing at 5% per year, versus investing $1000 in an account that pays compound interest of 5% per year, how does the amount I have after 5 years compare? Then the answer is, They would be exactly the same. As Kent Anderson says, \"\"compound interest\"\" simply means that as you accumulate interest, that for the next interest cycle, the amount that they pay interest on is based on the previous cycle balance PLUS the interest. For example, suppose you invest $1000 at 5% interest compounded annually. After one year you get 5% of $1000, or $50. You now have $1050. At the end of the second year, you get 5% of $1050 -- not 5% of the original $1000 -- or $52.50, so you now have $1102.50. Etc. Stocks tend to grow in the same way. But here's the big difference: If you get an interest-bearing account, the bank or investment company guarantees the interest rate. Unless they go bankrupt, you WILL get that percentage interest. But there is absolutely no guarantee when you buy stock. It may go up 5% this year, up 4% next year, and down 3% the year after. The company makes no promises about how much growth the stock will show. It may show a loss. It all depends on how well the company does.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "521996", "title": "", "text": "\"Good for you! At your age, you should definitely consider investing some of your hard-earned and un-needed money in stocks with the long-term goal of having your retirement funded. The time horizon that you'd have would be vastly superior to that of millions of others, who will wait until their thirties or even forties to begin investing in stocks, giving your compound interest prospects the extra time anyone needs for a spectacular vertical incline in your later years. Make sure to sign up to automatically re-invest the dividend payouts of your stocks, please. (If you don't already know how being young and investing well in your early years is more powerful than starting out ten to twenty years later, do a little research on \"\"Compound Interest\"\"). Make sure you monitor your investments. Being young means you have time to correct your investments (sell and buy other assets) if the businesses you initially selected are no longer good investments.\"" }, { "docid": "21903", "title": "", "text": "The value of money is not only in the earning and saving of it but also in the discipline in spending it. Any approach to teaching children about money must ensure a balance between the two otherwise they will either become fearful of spending (and so never actually learn that money is but a tool and can be enjoyed) or irresponsible (spending with abandon with all that concomitant misery): Teaching kids about money is a wonderful opportunity to instil discipline and values. Any strategy must be structured to suite the child's age and abilities as well. Trying to teach compound interest to too young a child will just become needlessly confusing and worrying for them. Hope this gives a few ideas." }, { "docid": "512458", "title": "", "text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"" }, { "docid": "308150", "title": "", "text": "\"If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster.\"" }, { "docid": "93215", "title": "", "text": "\"Typically, there are three ways an acquisition is financed. What is used is called the \"\"consideration\"\". 1.) Cash - Existing cash on the balance sheet is used. Think of it like purchasing something with your debit card. 2.) Stock - This a bit more complicated. The acquiring company issues new shares and exchanges those shares for shares of the acquiree. Because new shares are issued, this can have a dilutive effect on the stock price of the acquirer. However, it can have an accretive effect if enough synergistic value between the two companies is realized and/or expected. 3.) Debt - Basically like taking out a loan. The \"\"consideration\"\" for a deal is often reported, as you read in your article. Most deals are a combination of cash/stock/debt. (Debt is often referred to as \"\"cash\"\" - i.e. if you take out a loan, you are essentially receiving cash.) When it comes to which is best to use, there are quantitative analyses for that - with a specific focus on the acquirer's EPS (Earnings per share) post-deal. The factors that are considered are the forgone interest on cash, the additional interest gained from taking on debt, and the dilutive effects of issuing new stock. There is no right answer for which is best, as there are multiple different factors and circumstances involved across M&amp;A deals. Each company has different borrowing rates and synergistic value expected from their deals. One big factor is the timing and stock price of both companies during the deal. If the acquirer is trading at an all time high and the acquiree is at an all time low, then perhaps an all-stock deal would be advantageous to the buyer. Typically, companies want to avoid stock deals because they are the most dilutive.\"" }, { "docid": "261640", "title": "", "text": "\"The penny/pink sheet stocks you tend to see promoted are the ones a) with small public floats or, b) they are thinly traded. This means that any appreciable change in buy/sell volume will have an outsized effect on the stock's share price, even when the underlying fundamentals are not so great. Promoters are frequently paid based on how much they can move a stock's price, but such moves are not long-lasting. They peter out when the trading volumes return to more normal ranges for the stock because all of the hype has died out. There are some small-cap NASDAQ stocks which can be susceptible to promotion for the same reason -- they have small floats and/or are thinly traded. Once someone figures out the best targets, they'll accumulate a position and then start posting all kinds of \"\"news\"\" on the web in an effort to drum up interest so they can sell off their position into the buying that follows. The biggest problem with penny/pink sheet stocks is that they frequently fail to publish reliable financial statements, and their ownership is of a dubious nature. In the past, these types of stocks have been targeted by organized crime syndicates, which ran their own \"\"pump and dump\"\" operations as a way to make relatively easy money. This may still be true to some extent today. Be wary of investing in any publicly-traded firm that has to use promoters to drum up investor interest, because it can be a serious red flag. Even if it means missing out on a short-term opportunity, research the company before investing. Read its financials, understand how it has behaved through its trading history, learn about the products/services it is selling. Do your homework. Otherwise you are doing the investing equivalent of taking your money and lighting it on fire. Remember, there's a good reason these companies are trading as penny/pink sheet stocks, and it generally has nothing to do with the notion (the promoters will tell you) that somehow the \"\"market has missed out on this amazing opportunity.\"\" Pump and dump schemes, which lie at the heart of almost all stock promotion, rely on convincing you, the investor, that you're smart enough to see what others haven't. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "4429", "title": "", "text": "This is a purely numerical statement that you should be able to check (and you CPA friend should be able to prove, if true). The general advice, I think, is that you should not use your retirement funds this way, but general advice does not apply equally well to everyone. You didn't give enough information for us to compute the answer, so you're on your own there. If you do this (or have the CPA do it), make sure that it accounts for all pluses and minuses that you'll have. On the minus side, you get any direct penalties in addition to potential loss of right to contribute for a period of time, so make sure you consider both aspects, especially to any degree that you would lose an employer contribution or match. Also consider the fact that the money already in is tax advantaged, and you won't be able to replace that amount later. So there will be a compounding effect to what was lost. (This may or may not be balanced by a mortgage interest deduction down the road - My guess is that it will not, but, again, the details of your situation may dictate a different path. The mortgage interest deduction decreases each year as you pay more principal whereas the compounding from being tax deferred tends to increase each year.)" }, { "docid": "111033", "title": "", "text": "\"Bonds are valued based on all of this, using the concept of the \"\"time value of money\"\". Simply stated, money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. Case in point: let's say the par value of a bond is $100, and will mature 10 years from this date (these are common terms for most bonds, though the U.S. Treasury has a variety of bonds with varying par values and maturation periods), with a 0% coupon rate (nothing's paid out prior to maturity). If the company or government issuing the bonds needs one million dollars, and the people buying the bonds are expecting a 5% rate of return on their investment, then each bond would only sell for about $62, and the bond issuer would have to sell a par value of $1.62 million in bonds to get its $1m now. These numbers are based on equations that calculate the \"\"future value\"\" of an investment made now, and conversely the \"\"present value\"\" of a future return. Back to that time value of money concept, money now (that you're paying to buy the bond) is worth more than money later (that you'll get back at maturity), so you will expect to be returned more than you invested to account for this time difference. The percentage of rate of return is known as the \"\"yield\"\" or the \"\"discount rate\"\" depending on what you're calculating, what else you take into consideration when defining the rate (like inflation), and whom you talk to. Now, that $1.62m in par value may be hard for the bond issuer to swallow. The issuer is effectively paying interest on interest over the lifetime of the bond. Instead, many issuers choose to issue \"\"coupon bonds\"\", which have a \"\"coupon rate\"\" determining the amount of a \"\"coupon payment\"\". This can be equated pretty closely with you making interest-only payments on a credit card balance; each period in which interest is compounded, you pay the amount of interest that has accrued, to avoid this compounding effect. From an accounting standpoint, the coupon rate lowers the amount of real monies paid; the same $1m in bonds, maturing in 10 years with a 5% expected rate of return, but with a 5% coupon rate, now only requires payments totalling $1.5m, and that half-million in interest is paid $50k at a time annually (or $25k semi-annually). But, from a finance standpoint, because the payments made in the first few years are worth more than the payments made closer to and at maturity, the present value of all these coupon payments (plus the maturity payout) is higher than if the full payout happened at maturity, and so the future value of the total investment is higher. Coupon rates on bonds thus allow a bond issuer to plan a bond package in less complicated terms. If you as a small business need $1m for a project, which you will repay in 10 years, and during that time you are willing to tolerate a 5% interest rate on the outstanding money, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1 million worth, to mature in 10 years and a 5% coupon rate. Now, whether the market is willing to accept that rate is up to the market. Right now, they'd be over the moon with that rate, and would be willing to buy the bonds for more than their face value, because the present value would then match the yield they're willing to accept (as in any market system, you as the seller will sell to the highest bidder to get the best price available). If however, they think you are a bad bet, they'll want an even higher rate of return, and so the present value of all coupon and maturity payments will be less than the par value, and so will the purchase price.\"" }, { "docid": "103748", "title": "", "text": "\"As is so often the case, there is an asterisk next to that 2.5% interest offer. It leads you to a footnote which says: Savings Interest Rate Offer of 2.5% is available between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2015 on all net new deposits made between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2015 to a maximum of $250,000.00 per Account registration. You only earn 2.5% interest on deposits made during those three months. Also, on the full offer info page, it says: During the Offer Period, the Bank will calculate Additional Interest on eligible net new deposits and: All interest payments are ineligible for the purposes of calculating Additional Interest and will not be calculated for the purposes of determining eligible daily balances. In other words, any interest paid into an Applicable Account, including Additional Interest, will not be treated as a new deposit for subsequently calculating Additional Interest payments. I couldn't totally parse out all the details of the offer from their legalese, but what it sounds like is you will earn 2.5% interest on money that you deposit into the account during those three months. Any interest you accrue during that time will not count as a deposit in this sense, and so will not earn 2.5% compounded returns. The \"\"During the Offer Period\"\" qualification also makes it sound like this extra interest will only be paid during the three months (presumably at a 2.5% annualized rate, but I can't see where it actually says this). So essentially you are getting a one-time bonus for making deposits during a specific three-month period. The account doesn't really earn 2.5% interest in the normal sense. The long-term interest rate will be what it normally is for their savings accounts, which this page says is 1.05%.\"" }, { "docid": "247895", "title": "", "text": "The real value of a share of stock is the current cash value of all dividends the owner will receive, plus the current cash value of the final liquidation if any. Since people with different needs may judge the current cash value of an income stream differently, there would be a market basis for people to buy and sell stocks even if everyone could predict all future payouts perfectly. If shareholders knew that a company wouldn't pay any dividends until it was liquidated in the year 2066, whereupon it would pay $2000/share, then each share would in 2016 effectively be a fifty-year zero-coupon bond with a $2000 maturity value. While some investors would be willing to trade in such an instrument, the amount of money a company could charge for such an instrument would be far lower than the money it could charge for one with payouts that were more evenly distributed through time. Since the founders of most companies want their companies to be around for a long time, that would mean that shareholders would have no expectation of their shares ever yielding anything of value within any foreseeable timeframe. Even those who would be more interested in share-price appreciation than dividends wouldn't be able to see share prices rise if there wasn't any likelihood of the stock being bought by someone who wanted the dividends." }, { "docid": "399511", "title": "", "text": "Teach them that money can help solve most (if not all the problems) in life. If they truly appreciate the value of saving every single penny, eventually they will come to realize that if you don't touch your money (waste it on useless things you don't need such as eating out) that it can grow. Also teach them the value of compounding interest, even a TFSA/high interest savings account with a modest 3-4% annual ROI can be big with yearly additions and no withdrawals for a lifetime. Tell them to take Johnny Appleseed for example. Johnny starts up his TFSA with help from mom and dad at the age of 15, let's say they put in $5000 all together. Now let's say he adds in a modest $2500 to his TFSA every year until he is 55 years old. If the TFSA has an interest rate of 4%, then when he's 55 he'll have over half a million dollars in the bank and he really didn't have to do much besides not touch it." }, { "docid": "246624", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\"" }, { "docid": "6356", "title": "", "text": "Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends. It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent. Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in. If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between. As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term. To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time. Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view." }, { "docid": "495717", "title": "", "text": "\"Sorry in advance, but this will be long. Also, it sounds like your friend is a tool. I hope this \"\"friend\"\" is not also your financial advisor... they would be encouraging you to make a very poor investment decision. They also don't know how to do financial math. For what it's worth, I am not wrong. I have correctly answered a set of changing questions as you have asked them... Your friend is answering based on a third, completely different investment model, which you proposed in the edit to your last post. If that's what you meant all along, then you should have been more clear in the questions you were asking. Please let me layout the following: How the previous questions//investment proposals were built How to analyze this current proposal What your other option is Why the other option is best in a 'real world' market The First Question My understanding of the initial proposal was to take out a $10,000 loan, invest the proceeds, and expect to not have any money of your own tied up in this. Because that OP did not specify that this is an interest-only loan (you still haven't in any of your questions), the bank will require you to make payments back to them each month that include principal and interest. Your \"\"friend\"\" is talking about the total interest paid being the only cost of a loan. While that is (almost) true, regardless of what your friend says, significantly more cash is involved in making sure that all the payments are made on time---unless you set up an interest-only loan. But with the set up laid out in this post, and with the assumptions I specified there, the principal payments must be included because the borrower has to pay back the bank and isn't not tying up any of their own money. In that case, my initial analysis is correct--your breakeven is in the low teens for an annual required return. The Second Proposal Your second proposal... before any edits... refined things a little bit, to try to capture the any possible returns by not selling something. As I indicated there, (with what was an exaggerating assumption), the lack of clarity makes for an outlandish required return. The Second Proposal...with edits, or the one proposed above I will get to the one proposed above in a second, but first let me highlight a few problems with your friend's analysis. Simple interest: the only place (in the US at least) that will lend with simple interest is student loans. Any loan that you actually take out will be compound interest. Not an interest only loan: your \"\"friend\"\" is not calculating interest correctly. Since this isn't an interest-only loan, the principal balance will reduce every time you make a payment, by ~$320-$340 each month. This substantially reduces the total interest paid, to $272.79 over the total 24 months. \"\"Returns\"\": I don't know what country, or what business your friend works in, but \"\"returns\"\" are a very ambiguous concept. Investopedia defines returns as gains or losses. (I wish I could inhabit the lala land that your friend lives in when returns are always positive). TheFreeDictionary.com defines a return for finance as \"\"The change in the value of a portfolio over an evaluation period, including any distributions made from the portfolio during that period.\"\" When you have not made it clear that any other money is being used in this investment plan (as was the case in scheme #1 and scheme #2a,) the loan still has to be paid. So, clearly the principal must be included in the return calculations. How to evaluate this proposed investment scheme Key dimensions: Loan ($8,000 ... 24 months ... 0.27% monthly rate... monthly compounding... no loan origination fees) Monthly payment (PMT in Excel yields $344.70). Investment capital (starting = $8,000) Monthly Return (Investment yields... we hope it's positive!) Your monthly contribution from your salary Taxes = 10%. Transaction Fees = $20 Go and lookup how to build an amortization table for a loan in Excel. Your life will be infinitely better for it. Now, you get this loan set up and invested into something... (it costs $20 to buy the assets). So you've got $7980 chugging away earning interest. I calculate that your break even, with you paying in $344.70 of your own money each month is 1.81% annually, or 3.42% over the 24 month life of this scheme. That is using monthly compound interest for the payments, because that's what the real world would use, and using monthly compounding of the investments' returns. Your total interest expense would be $272.79. This seems feasible. But let's talk about what your other option is, given that you're ready to spend $344.70 each month on an investment. Your other option I understand the appeal of getting $8,000... right away... to invest in something. But the risk behind this is that if the market goes down (and markets do) you're stuck paying a fixed amount for your loan that is now worth less money. Your other option is to take your $344.70, and invest it step-by-step. (You would want to skip a month or two buying assets in the market, so that you can lessen transaction costs). This has two advantages: (1) you save yourself $272 in interest. (2) When the market goes down, you still win. With this strategy, you still win when the market goes down because of what is commonly called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". When the market is up, your investments are also up. When the market goes down, your previous investments decrease in value but you can invest new money at the lower rates. Why the step-by-step, invest your own money strategy is better At low rates (when you're looking for your break-even), the step-by-step model outperforms the loan. At higher rates of return (~4% + per year), you get the benefit of having the borrowed money earning more gains. In fact, for every continuous (meaning set... not changing month-to-month) interest rate that you can dream up that is greater than about 4% per year, the borrowed money earns more. At 10% per year, the borrowed money will earn about $500 more over the 2 years than your step by step investment would. BUT I recognize that you might feel like the market will always go up. That's what everyone thinks. And that's alright. But have one really bad month, or a couple of just-not-great-months, and your fixed 'loan' portfolio will underperform. Have a few really bad months, and your portfolio could be substantially reduced in value... but you would still be paying the same amount for it each month. And if that happened (say your assets declined -3% in 3 of the 24 months...) You'd be losing money relative to the step-by-step portfolio.\"" }, { "docid": "43683", "title": "", "text": "If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities." }, { "docid": "376246", "title": "", "text": "\"You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Cash flow is the life blood of any business. When banks loan money, they are expecting a steady cash flow back. If you just pay back \"\"whenever\"\" - the bank has no idea what they'll be getting back month-to-month. When they can set the terms of the loan (length, rate, payment amount), they know how much cash flow they expect to get. What does [the term of the loan] even mean and what difference in the world does it make? In addition to the predictable cash flow needs above, setting a term for the loan determines how long their money will be tied up in the loan. The longer a bank has money tied up in a loan, the more risk there is that the borrower will default, so the bank will require a greater return (interest rate) for that extra risk. What you have described is effectively a revolving line of credit. The bank let you borrow money arbitrarily, charges you a certain rate of interest, and you can pay them back at your schedule. If you pay all of the interest for that month, everything else goes to principal. If you don't pay all of the interest, that interest is added to the balance and gets interest compounded on top of it. Both are perfectly viable business models, and bank employ them both, but they meed different needs for the bank. Fixed-term loans help stabilize cash flow, and lines of credit provide convenience for customers.\"" }, { "docid": "167438", "title": "", "text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest)." }, { "docid": "570787", "title": "", "text": "Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently." }, { "docid": "484414", "title": "", "text": "Because so many businesses make some money through some form of compound interest, like a business that saves its earnings in a business account that pays interest, it heavily depends on how strict you interpret this law. Some Muslims I know interpret it to mean directly and indirectly, while for some it's just direct interest earned. What I would suggest is either a direct investment in agriculture or a share in agriculture, where you are directly paid from your share in the investment and not through money that comes from a bank account earning interest. If you do a direct investment in agriculture, like owning livestock, you will be paid money in the form of food, which compounds through reproduction and can sell the offspring to others and collect the money. Year to date, agriculture is crushing the S&P 500 and many places around the world are facing shortages in food, like sugar and corn. If you don't have enough money for a direct investment, you can try the share route where you own a share of a direct investment. Rather than go through stock exchanges, where many of these companies make money indirectly through interest also, you can negotiate directly with farmers, ranchers, livestock owners, etc. Some of these individuals are looking to diversify their money, so they may be willing to let you own a fraction of what they produce and pay you directly. All of this comes with risk, of course. Livestock and plants die for a variety of reasons, but none of it will be interest from lending whether to individuals or through a bank. In addition, if we experience very high inflation in the future, livestock and plants do very well in this environment." } ]

[ { "docid": "140738", "title": "", "text": "\"At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts. Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question. I seek high return rather than protection of principal. If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover. But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like. If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars). Will you have low or high monthly expenses? Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties? Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year. You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund. You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years. You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times. Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies. There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities. In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say \"\"how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire\"\"? The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future. You are off to a good start. Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting. The rest will follow. After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "269385", "title": "", "text": "I think you understood much of what I say, in general. Unfortunately, I didn't follow Patches math. What I gleen from your summary is a 1% match to the 10% invested, but a .8% expense. The ETF VOO has a .05% annual fee, a bit better than SPY. A quick few calculations show that the 10% bonus does offset a long run of the .75% excess expense compared to external investing. After decades, the 401(k) appears to still be a bit ahead. Not the dramatic delta suggested in the prior answer, but enough to stay with the 401(k) in this situation. The tiny match still makes the difference. Edit - the question you linked to. The 401(k) had no match, and an awful 1.2% annual expense. This combination is deadly for the younger investor. Always an exception to offer - a 25% marginal rate earner close to retiring at 15%. The 401(k) deposit saves him 25, but can soon be withdrawn at 15, it's worth a a few years of that fee to make this happen. For the young person who is planning a quick exit from the company, same deal." }, { "docid": "406561", "title": "", "text": "\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"" }, { "docid": "31462", "title": "", "text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"" }, { "docid": "88539", "title": "", "text": "There are two significant drawbacks to this type of transfer. They were the reasons why I kept my American 401(k) as-is and started funding my Canadian RRSP from zero balance. 1. Taxes - a large chunk of your 401(k) will be lost to taxes. There is probably no way to transfer the funds without making a 401(k)/IRA withdrawal, which will incur the US federal tax and the 10% early-withdrawal penalty. When the money went into the 401(k), you got a tax deduction in the US and the tax break is supposed be repaid later when you make a withdrawal (that's basically how tax deferral works). It's unlikely that any country will let you take a deduction first and send the payback to a foreign country. The withdrawal amount may also be taxable in Canada (Canadians generally pay taxes on their global income and that includes pensions and distributions from foreign retirement plans). Foreign tax credit will apply of course, to eliminate double taxation, but it's of little help if your marginal Canadian tax rate is higher than your average US tax rate. 2. Expenses. Your RRSP will have to be invested in something and mutual fund management expenses are generally higher in Canada than in the US. For example, my employer-sponsored RRSP has a Standard & Poor's stock index fund that charges 1.5% and that is considered low-cost. It also offers a number of managed funds with expenses in excess of 2% that I simply ignore. You can probably invest your American 401(k)/IRA in mutual funds more efficiently." }, { "docid": "553288", "title": "", "text": "Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal." }, { "docid": "452126", "title": "", "text": "To expand on mhoran's answer - Once you mention the 401(k), we're compelled to ask (a) what is the match, if any, and (b) what are the expenses within the funds offered. Depositing to get the full match is going to get you the biggest return on your money. It's common to get a dollar for dollar match on the first 5 or 6% of your income. If the fees are high, you stop at the match, and move to an IRA for the next money you wish to save. At 22, I'd probably focus on the Roth. If you have access to a Roth 401(k), that's great, the match will be pre tax dollars and you'll get started with a decent tax status mix. These accounts can form the core of your investing. Most people have little left over once their retirement accounts are fully funded. And yes, reading to understand stocks is great, but also to understand why stock indexing is the best choice for most investors." }, { "docid": "42537", "title": "", "text": "The simplest way to consolidate the funds your old 401(k) plans is by doing what's called a Direct Rollover (whereby the funds go directly into the new plan and skips you completely) from each of the old plans into either an IRA that you establish with a provider of your choice or even into your current employer's 401(k) plan if that is available. That way, the funds are in one central account and available to invest. Plus it eliminates the mandatory 20% withholding if the rollover is indirect and is sent to you first before the deposit into the new plan. It is important to bear in mind that you have 60 calendar days from the date of distribution to get the full amount into the new plan and a rollover is considered a tax reportable, but not necessarily a taxable event provided you deposit the funds within the time frame allotted." }, { "docid": "224434", "title": "", "text": "My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule." }, { "docid": "19973", "title": "", "text": "\"Will it be more money for me now if I don't take it out? Yes Will it be more money for for my retirement if I do? Yes The difference will be the existence of a match and tax-deferral. If there is a match then you will have an instant 100% gain on the amount that is matched. From a tax standpoint, putting some in your 401(k) now will reduce your taxes this year - you will instead pay tax when you withdraw the money at retirement (the withdrawal will be considered \"\"income\"\" at that time). Other decision points: If there is no match, but you still want to add to retirement savings, then you could alternatively put the money in an IRA, which will give you more control over your investments than a 401(k) (which could be good or bad, depending on how investment savvy you are).\"" }, { "docid": "395840", "title": "", "text": "If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.)" }, { "docid": "373119", "title": "", "text": "How can I use $4000 to make $250 per month for the rest of my life? This means the investment should generate close to 6.25% return per month or around 75% per year. There is no investment that gives this kind of return. The long term return of stock market is around 15-22% depending on the year range and country." }, { "docid": "424841", "title": "", "text": "If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances." }, { "docid": "525645", "title": "", "text": "HCE is defined as being above 120k$ or in the top 20 % of the company. The exact cutoff point might be different for each company. Typically, only the base salary is considered for that, but it's the company's (and 401(k)-plan's) decision. The IRS does not require HCE treatment; the IRS requires that 401(k) plans have a 'fair' distribution of usage between all employees. Very often, employees with lower income save (over-proportionally) less in their 401(k), and there is a line where the 401(k) plan is no longer acceptable to the IRS. HCE is a way for companies to ensure this forced balance; by limiting the amount of 401(k) savings for HCE, the companies ensure that the share of all contributions by below-HCE is appropriate. They will calculate/define the HCE cutoff point so that the required distribution is surely achieved. One of the consequences is that when you move over the HCE cutoff point, you can suddenly save a lot less in your 401(k). Nothing can be done about that. See this IRS page: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/definitions Highly Compensated Employee - An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received compensation from the business of more than $115,000 (if the preceding year is 2014; $120,000 if the preceding year is 2015 or 2016), and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation." }, { "docid": "136280", "title": "", "text": "A 401(k) is an investment just like any other investment. You generally get two types of return lumped into that number, but there can be more and you should read your funds prospectus carefully. If you aren't investing in direct companies, you're using mutual funds for instance, then you should read the funds prospectus to see how they handle these situations for the underlying securities they hold for you. Although I think this is the basic answer to the question as you asked." }, { "docid": "449696", "title": "", "text": "I applied to a travel credit card after my local branch of Bank of America told me I should look into it due to my constant traveling. I've been with them for 3 years and have never had an issue and I was declined on my travel credit card even though I have a decent credit score of 730. I'm also a 22 year old and have my senior year of school to finish but have always been good with Bank of America. Is it because I'm young?" }, { "docid": "490867", "title": "", "text": "Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods." }, { "docid": "199237", "title": "", "text": "\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \"\"average out\"\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\"" }, { "docid": "276574", "title": "", "text": "The Roth-IRA or for that matter a regular IRA is generally not connected to your place of employment. Now a 401(k) is linked to your place of employment. If the business no longer exists, they should have turned over the 401K. The US department of Labor has information regarding plans that have been abandoned. I suspect my plan is abandoned, but I have never received a notice of plan termination. How could I find out if a QTA has elected to terminate and wind up my 401(k) pension plan? EBSA has developed an Abandoned Plan searchable database to help participants and beneficiaries find out if a particular plan is in the process of being, or has been, terminated. The site is searchable by plan name or employer name and will provide the name and contact information for the QTA, if one exists. If you do not have access to a computer to conduct the search, you may contact one of EBSA’s Benefits Advisors to assist you by calling toll-free, 1.866.444.EBSA (3272)." }, { "docid": "591168", "title": "", "text": "\"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "216365", "title": "", "text": "At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort." } ]

[ { "docid": "208263", "title": "", "text": "\"A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Rollover IRAs were used for funds that came from (were rolled over from) a 401(k) account or a 403(b) account. All that money (including any earnings in the interim) could be rolled over into a 401(k) plan with a new employer etc. One could make a regular contribution to a Rollover IRA but once such a commingling of money occurred, none of the money in the Rollover IRA could be rolled over into a 401(k) account etc. In those good old days when contributions to IRAs were made by paper check and \"\"deposit slip\"\", one had to write a letter to the Rollover IRA custodian certifying that the IRA owner understood that the contribution would destroy forever the possibility of rolling over the money into another 401(k) etc. All this went by the wayside a few years ago when the law changed and the distinction between Rollover IRAs and ordinary Traditional IRAs was eliminated. Commingling of IRA contributions and Rollover money from 401(k)s are permitted, and the entire IRA balance could be rolled over into a new 401(k) plan (provided the new plan accepted rollovers). However the adjectives still persist; like chili555, I too have IRAs that are still called Rollover IRA, they all have commingled funds, and if the law ever changes back, none of those IRA accounts would be eligible for rolling over into a new 401(k).\"" }, { "docid": "490867", "title": "", "text": "Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods." }, { "docid": "4181", "title": "", "text": "\"As other responders said, you can certainly roll over multiple 401(k) into a single account. An added benefit of such rollover (besides the ease of tracking) is that you can shop around for your Rollover IRA provider and find the one that gives you the specific mutual funds that you want to invest in, the lowest expenses, etc. - in short, find the best fit to your priorities. There are also \"\"lemon\"\" 401(k) plans and if you are in one of them, get out! And rollover is the way out. There is also one possibility to keep an eye on as it happens rarely, but it does happen - rolling a 401(k) over into another 401(k). I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. At the same time I kept a Rollover IRA, combining the 401(k) from all other jobs; it had more investment options and provided some flexibility.\"" }, { "docid": "591168", "title": "", "text": "\"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"" }, { "docid": "595875", "title": "", "text": "If it were my money, I wouldn't put it in a 401(k) for this purpose. If you were working at a company that provided 401(k) matching, then it might be worth it to put the money in your employer's 401(k) because the employer chips in based on what you put in. But you're self-employed, so there's no matching unless you match it yourself. (Correct?) So, given that there's no matching, a 401(k) arrangement would have more restrictions than a non-tax-advantaged account (like a bank account, or a taxable money market account). This would be taxable in the year you earn the money, but then that's it. If you're expecting to pull out the money pre-retirement, I wouldn't put it in in the first place." }, { "docid": "163287", "title": "", "text": "\"Your initial plan (of minimizing your interest rate, and taking advantage of the 401(k) match) makes sense, except I would put the 401(k) money in a very low risk investment (such as a money market fund) while the stock market seems to be in a bear market. How to decide when the stock market is in a bear market is a separate question. You earn a 100% return immediately on money that receives the company match -- provided that you stay at the company long enough for the company match to \"\"vest\"\". This immediate 100% return far exceeds the 3.25% return by paying down debt. As long as it makes sense to keep your retirement funds in low-risk, low-return investments, it makes more sense to use your remaining free cash flow to pay down debts than to save extra money in retirement funds. After setting aside the 6% of your income that is eligible for the company match, you should be able to rapidly pay down your debts. This will make it far easier for you to qualify for a mortgage later on. Also, if you can pay off your debt in a couple years, you will minimize your risk from the proposed variable rate. First, there will be fewer chances for the rate to go up. Second, even if the rate does go up, you will not owe the money very long.\"" }, { "docid": "224434", "title": "", "text": "My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule." }, { "docid": "417446", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market? You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return. This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight. Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - \"\"annuities are sold, not bought\"\") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you. At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you. Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it. Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio. (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with.\"" }, { "docid": "449696", "title": "", "text": "I applied to a travel credit card after my local branch of Bank of America told me I should look into it due to my constant traveling. I've been with them for 3 years and have never had an issue and I was declined on my travel credit card even though I have a decent credit score of 730. I'm also a 22 year old and have my senior year of school to finish but have always been good with Bank of America. Is it because I'm young?" }, { "docid": "551545", "title": "", "text": "401(k)'s can be rolled over into IRAs. You can roll all of your former company 401(k)'s into a single IRA, managed by whatever company you like. Many employers will not let you transfer money out of your 401(k) while you're still a current employee, though, so you may be stuck with the 401(k) used by your current company until you leave. You'll have to check with your 401(k) administrator to be sure. You won't incur any taxes as long as you execute the rollovers properly. The best way to do it is to coordinate the transfer directly between your old 401(k) and your new IRA, so the check is never sent directly to you." }, { "docid": "199237", "title": "", "text": "\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \"\"average out\"\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\"" }, { "docid": "422421", "title": "", "text": "First, read my answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing For me, the answer to your question comes down to how badly you want to get rid of your student loan debt. I recommend that you get rid of it as fast as possible, and that you sacrifice a little in your budget temporarily to make that happen. If that is what you want, here is what I would do. Following the steps in my other answer, I would pay off the student loans first. Cash out your non-retirement growth fund to jump start that, then challenge yourself to take as much of your paycheck as you can and throw it at the debt. Figure out how many months it will take before the debt is gone. Once the debt is gone, you won't have those monthly payments anymore and you won't be continually losing money in interest to the bank. At that point, you can build up your cash savings, invest in your employer's 401(k) plan for retirement, and start saving toward other long-term saving goals (car, house, etc.) To address some of your other concerns: If you cash out the non-retirement fund, you'll probably owe some capital gains tax. (Although, on a $3k investment, the long term rate won't add up to very much, depending on your tax bracket and cost basis.) You can't use the money from your non-retirement fund to invest in your 401(k). You can only contribute to your 401(k) via payroll deduction. To explicitly answer your question, your non-retirement fund is not bound by the limitations of retirement funds, meaning that you can cash it out and use it however you like without penalty, only paying perhaps a few hundred dollars of capital gains tax at tax time next year. Think of it as another source of cash for you." }, { "docid": "452830", "title": "", "text": "A few years ago I had been contributing with my employer to a 401(k). When I then moved abroad, I found it difficult to stay in touch with my 401(k). The toll-free numbers I had used inside the US, to contact the plan administrators, did not work from overseas." }, { "docid": "88539", "title": "", "text": "There are two significant drawbacks to this type of transfer. They were the reasons why I kept my American 401(k) as-is and started funding my Canadian RRSP from zero balance. 1. Taxes - a large chunk of your 401(k) will be lost to taxes. There is probably no way to transfer the funds without making a 401(k)/IRA withdrawal, which will incur the US federal tax and the 10% early-withdrawal penalty. When the money went into the 401(k), you got a tax deduction in the US and the tax break is supposed be repaid later when you make a withdrawal (that's basically how tax deferral works). It's unlikely that any country will let you take a deduction first and send the payback to a foreign country. The withdrawal amount may also be taxable in Canada (Canadians generally pay taxes on their global income and that includes pensions and distributions from foreign retirement plans). Foreign tax credit will apply of course, to eliminate double taxation, but it's of little help if your marginal Canadian tax rate is higher than your average US tax rate. 2. Expenses. Your RRSP will have to be invested in something and mutual fund management expenses are generally higher in Canada than in the US. For example, my employer-sponsored RRSP has a Standard & Poor's stock index fund that charges 1.5% and that is considered low-cost. It also offers a number of managed funds with expenses in excess of 2% that I simply ignore. You can probably invest your American 401(k)/IRA in mutual funds more efficiently." }, { "docid": "436331", "title": "", "text": "I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer. Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html). The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years. On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period. At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K. If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home. Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away." }, { "docid": "97490", "title": "", "text": "The money that you have under your control (e.g. in bank accounts, savings accounts, taxable investments, etc) is your money and there is no tax of any kind (either in India or in US) that needs to be paid when the money is transferred to India. As Dheer's answer says, you need to transfer all these monies within 7 years as per Indian tax law. For your 401(k) account, assuming that all the money is tax-deferred (i.e. you contributed to a regular 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k)), you will have separated from service as far as US tax law is concerned. So, check if it is at all possible to roll over the money into a similar scheme in India, specifically the Employees Provident Fund. Wikipedia says The schemes covers both Indian and international workers (for countries with which bilateral agreements have been signed; 14 such social security agreements are active). and so a rollover might be possible. If not, you could withdraw small amounts each year and avoid US income tax (but not the 10% excise tax), but how long you can continue holding 401(k) assets after return to India and whether that is long enough to drain the 401(k) are things that you need to find out." }, { "docid": "553288", "title": "", "text": "Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal." }, { "docid": "396097", "title": "", "text": "You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns. Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains. The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it. This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA. So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs. If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur. You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year. These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on. With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years." }, { "docid": "168561", "title": "", "text": "On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above." } ]

[ { "docid": "523331", "title": "", "text": "Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough." } ]

[ { "docid": "97490", "title": "", "text": "The money that you have under your control (e.g. in bank accounts, savings accounts, taxable investments, etc) is your money and there is no tax of any kind (either in India or in US) that needs to be paid when the money is transferred to India. As Dheer's answer says, you need to transfer all these monies within 7 years as per Indian tax law. For your 401(k) account, assuming that all the money is tax-deferred (i.e. you contributed to a regular 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k)), you will have separated from service as far as US tax law is concerned. So, check if it is at all possible to roll over the money into a similar scheme in India, specifically the Employees Provident Fund. Wikipedia says The schemes covers both Indian and international workers (for countries with which bilateral agreements have been signed; 14 such social security agreements are active). and so a rollover might be possible. If not, you could withdraw small amounts each year and avoid US income tax (but not the 10% excise tax), but how long you can continue holding 401(k) assets after return to India and whether that is long enough to drain the 401(k) are things that you need to find out." }, { "docid": "301616", "title": "", "text": "The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it." }, { "docid": "163287", "title": "", "text": "\"Your initial plan (of minimizing your interest rate, and taking advantage of the 401(k) match) makes sense, except I would put the 401(k) money in a very low risk investment (such as a money market fund) while the stock market seems to be in a bear market. How to decide when the stock market is in a bear market is a separate question. You earn a 100% return immediately on money that receives the company match -- provided that you stay at the company long enough for the company match to \"\"vest\"\". This immediate 100% return far exceeds the 3.25% return by paying down debt. As long as it makes sense to keep your retirement funds in low-risk, low-return investments, it makes more sense to use your remaining free cash flow to pay down debts than to save extra money in retirement funds. After setting aside the 6% of your income that is eligible for the company match, you should be able to rapidly pay down your debts. This will make it far easier for you to qualify for a mortgage later on. Also, if you can pay off your debt in a couple years, you will minimize your risk from the proposed variable rate. First, there will be fewer chances for the rate to go up. Second, even if the rate does go up, you will not owe the money very long.\"" }, { "docid": "31462", "title": "", "text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"" }, { "docid": "232262", "title": "", "text": "\"The responses here are excellent. I'd add just a couple points. Debt is not generic. It ranges from low (my HELOC is 2.5%) to insane (24% credit card, anyone?). When I read about the obsession to be completely debt free, I ask questions. Are you saving in your 401(k) at least up to the match? I disagree with the \"\"debt is evil\"\" people who advise to ignore retirement savings while paying off every last debt. My company offers a dollar for dollar match on the first 5% of income deposited. So a $60K earner will see a $3000 deposit doubled. 5 years of this, and he has 1/2 a year's income in his retirement account, more with positive returns. (note - for those so fearful of losses, all 401(k) accounts have to offer a fixed income, low risk choice. currently 1% or less, but the opposite of \"\"I can lose it all\"\".) After that, paying off the higher debt is great. When it's time to hack away at student debt and mortgage, I am concerned that if it's at the risk of having no savings, I'd hold off. Consider - Two people in homes worth $250K. One has a mortgage of $250K and $100K in the bank. The other has his mortgage paid down to $150K. When they lose their jobs, the guy with the $100K in the bank has the funds to float himself through a period of unemployment as well as a house the bank is less likely to foreclose on. The guy with no money is in deep trouble, and the bank can sell his house for $150K and run away (after proper foreclosure proceedings of course.) My mortgage is one bill, like any other, and only a bit more than my property tax. I don't lose sleep over it. It will be paid before I retire, and before my 11yr old is off to college. I don't think you stupid for paying your low interest debt at your own pace.\"" }, { "docid": "336144", "title": "", "text": "\"Why it is good to be risky The reason why it is good to be risky is because risky investments can result in higher returns on your money. The problem with being risky, is there is a chance you can lose money. However, in the long term you can usually benefit from higher returns even if you have a few slip ups. Let me show you an example: These two lines are based off of placing $2,000 in a retirement fund at age of 20 and then at age of 25 start investing $6,500 a year (based off of a salary of $65,000 with a company that will 1 to 1 match up to 5% IRA contribution, presumably someone with a Master's should be able to get this) and then being able to increase your contribution amount by $150 a year as your salary begins to increase as well. The blue line assumes that all of this money that you are putting in a retirement account has a fixed 3% interest (compounded yearly for simplicity sake) every year until you retire. The red line is earning a 12% interest rate while you are 20 years old and then decreasing by 0.5% per year until you retire. Since this is using more risky investments when you are younger, I have even gone ahead and included losing 20% of your money when you are 24, another 20% when you are 29, and then again another 20% when you are 34. As you can see, even with losing 20% of your money 3 different times, you still end up with more money then you would have had if you stuck with a more conservative investment plan. If I change this to 50% each 3 times, you will still come out about equal to a more conservative investment. Now, I do have these 3 loses placed at a younger age when there is less to lose, but this is to be expected since you are being more risky when you are young. When you are closer to retirement you have less of a chance of losing money since you will be investing more conservatively. Why it is OK to be risky when you are young but not old Lets say you loose 20% of your $2,000 when you are young, you have 30-40 years to make that back. That's roughly $1 a month extra that you are having to come up with. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are young, you have plenty of time to account for it before you retire. Now lets say you have $1,000,000 when you are 5 years from retiring and loose 20% of it, you have to come up with an extra $3,333 a month if you want to retire on time. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are close to retiring, you will most likely have to work for many more years just to be able to recover from your loses. What to invest in This is a little bit more difficult question to answer. If there was one \"\"right\"\" way to invest your money, every one would be doing that one \"\"right\"\" way and would result in it not turning out to be that good of investment. What you need to do is come up with a plan for yourself. My biggest advice that I can give is to be careful with fees. Some places will charge a fixed dollar amount per trade, while others might charge a fixed dollar amount per month, while even others might charge a percentage of your investment. With only having $2,000 to invest, a large fee might make it difficult to make money.\"" }, { "docid": "425703", "title": "", "text": "I tried to roll my funds to my new company. But my hr department from my old job would not work with me on getting it straightened out. So I decided to either pull it all out or roll it into a 401 k and use it as a trial for stocks and investments. Simce it isn't a large amount of money to begin with" }, { "docid": "272223", "title": "", "text": "\"The original question was aimed at early payment on a student loan at 6%. Let's look at some numbers. Note, the actual numbers were much lower, I've increased the debt to a level that's more typical, as well as more likely to keep the borrower worried, and \"\"up at night.\"\" On a $50K loan, we see 2 potential payoffs. A 6 year accelerated payoff which requires $273.54 extra per month, and the original payoff, with a payment of $555.10. Next, I show the 6 year balance on the original loan terms, $23,636.44 which we would need to exceed in the 401(k) to consider we made the right choice. The last section reflects the 401(k) balance with different rates of return. I purposely offer a wide range of returns. Even if we had another 'lost decade' averaging -1%/yr, the 401(k) balance is more than 50% higher than the current loan debt. At a more reasonable 6% average, it's double. (Note: The $273.54 deposit should really be adjusted, adding 33% if one is in the 25% bracket, or 17.6% if 15% bracket. That opens the can of worms at withdrawal. But let me add, I coerced my sister to deposit to the match, while married and a 25%er. Divorced, and disabled, her withdrawals are penalty free, and $10K is tax free due to STD deduction and exemption.) Note: The chart and text above have been edited at the request of a member comment. What about an 18% credit card? Glad you asked - The same $50K debt. It's tough to imagine a worse situation. You budgeted and can afford $901, because that's the number for a 10 year payoff. Your spouse says she can grab a extra shift and add $239/mo to the plan, because that' the number to get to a 6 year payoff. The balance after 6 years if we stick to the 10 year plan? $30,669.82. The 401(k) balances at varying rates of return again appear above. A bit less dramatic, as that 18% is tough, but even at a negative return the 401(k) is still ahead. You are welcome to run the numbers, adjust deposits for your tax rate and same for withdrawals. You'll see -1% is still about break-even. To be fair, there are a number of variables, debt owed, original time for loan to be paid, rate of loan, rate of return assumed on the 401(k), amount of potential extra payment, and the 2 tax rates, going in, coming out. Combine a horrific loan rate (the 18%) with a longer payback (15+ years) and you can contrive a scenario where, in fact, even the matched funds have trouble keeping up. I'm not judging, but I believe it's fair to say that if one can't find a budget that allows them to pay their 18% debt over a 10 year period, they need more help that we can offer here. I'm only offering the math that shows the power of the matched deposit. From a comment below, the one warning I'd offer is regarding vesting. The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster.\"" }, { "docid": "452126", "title": "", "text": "To expand on mhoran's answer - Once you mention the 401(k), we're compelled to ask (a) what is the match, if any, and (b) what are the expenses within the funds offered. Depositing to get the full match is going to get you the biggest return on your money. It's common to get a dollar for dollar match on the first 5 or 6% of your income. If the fees are high, you stop at the match, and move to an IRA for the next money you wish to save. At 22, I'd probably focus on the Roth. If you have access to a Roth 401(k), that's great, the match will be pre tax dollars and you'll get started with a decent tax status mix. These accounts can form the core of your investing. Most people have little left over once their retirement accounts are fully funded. And yes, reading to understand stocks is great, but also to understand why stock indexing is the best choice for most investors." }, { "docid": "253552", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, the numbers you give are most probably nowhere near the total expenses you have/need to budget: Maybe you should have a look at the expenses you had over the last years (look at how much money came in and how much went to the savings and compare this expenses to the sum of all the expenses you have on your list of expenses as plausibility check. Just starting on some numbers you give and assuming the house is the main goal. House of 300 - 500 k€, assuming downpayment of 30 - 40 %, i.e. somewhere between 90 and 200 k€. I'll go on calculating with 150 k€ which would be 50 % of 300 k€ or 30 % of 500 k€. You want to be there in 8 - 15 a: this means saving 10 - 19 k€ per year. 19 k€/a is clearly impossible with 20 k€ net wage. 10 k€ with 20 k€ net wage means a savings quote of 50 %, so for each € you spend, one goes towards the house. This is doable in the sense that if you continue with 4 k€/a for rent plus a Harz 4 (= 400 €/month) style of life, that would put you to 9 k€ expenses/a, thus 1 k€ saving for unexpected disaster (I'd actually first get a couple of k€ together for such things, and then go as much as possible towards the house). Still, this is not the life style the rest of your goals sounds like. (You can update this somewhat with the expected income of your girlfriend/wife. But remember that she needs food and clothes as well and you assume she'll need a car of her own) Let me rephrase the savings goal of 150 k€: you'd try to save 3 times the median German household equity within 8 to 15 years. This should tell you that it is a very steep proposition. On the other hand, e.g. Slowakians manage to have a median household equity of ca 60 k€ out of a median income that is roughly half the median income in Germany. So again it is somehow possible, but it will be really tough to live a life style like a Slowakian or Harz 4ler between peers that spend roughly everything (good approximation as we're talking about savings rates above 50 % of net income) they earn. I think the \"\"easiest\"\" way to get your savings going is to postpone lifestyle upgrades. On the other hand, around Waldeck, 150 k€ would buy you a complete new house of the same size that costs 300 - 500 k€ around Darmstadt. So if you really want to go for the house, I'd recommend not only to save as hard as you can*, but also to look out for possibilities to relocate to a cheaper area. 8 - 15 years should be enough time to decide what area you'd like and then to look for an opportunity without too much pressure. And actually this should be enough time so that also your girlfriend/wife could get herself transferred to another Bundesland. * In reality saving as hard as possible will probably get you nowhere near 150 k€ (there are very few people who manage to do this - though they exist), but if you get to 75 k€ that would mean a reasonably good position for both starting negotiations with the bank about buying a 150 k€ house plus the corresponding payment of the mortgage. If you get there within less than 15 years that would also leave some air in case you change opinion with regard to kids and then leaves a reasonable amount of time to put together your pension. Consider your psychology about saving towards the house. Even if both of you know that you want it really hard, it may be good to enter a building savings contract (15 years should be reasonable for that way) which will enforce you to keep up the savings rate and also does not allow you to divert money for other purposes. However, I'd say that 6 months into the first job it may be a bit early to fix such savings rates. Maybe for the beginning a savings account that includes some hassle to get the money out again (set low limit and allow any outgoing money to go only to another account of yours) with an automatic savings deposit every month is a way how to safely determine the savings rate you can manage. Maybe you can use this to first put together your new emergency savings which should be first priority anyways. If you want to cut expenses in order to save, look at the recommendations for people who try to get out of debt: budget your expenses, cook yourself and enjoy this (maybe taking a cooking class together with your girlfriend is a lot of fun, leads to food that may even be more to your taste than restaurant stuff - and is much cheaper), keep book, pay in cash (not by card) and so on. If you're not a DIY person, try whether you could enjoy becoming one - no magic involved there. I guess the most important point is to find out how much you want the house and then how hard you are willing to save. This is something only you and your girlfriend can decide (together!). IMHO you really don't need to invest (unless you drop the house plan), you need to save towards your goals. You may decide to invest a small part of the money while saving in order to learn slowly how that works, but if the house goal is already kind of fixed in time, you don't want to find yourself in the situation that you have to get out of investments at a bad time in order to be able to buy the house. Even if you consider 15 years long enough to do some investing now and then get out some time during the next 15 years, you don't have any money to invest now. Later, the risk posed by the fixed point in time when you need the money is too large: Considering the rather steep saving propositions, the marginal costs of having less money are really large. This means you don't want to go for risky investments => plain old saving is what you need. Consider also that low house prices tend to come during economic crisis (people cannot pay mortgage and have to sell) so within the time window, you want to have your money for anticyclic buying if possible.\"" }, { "docid": "214248", "title": "", "text": "\"I live near historic Concord, Massachusetts, and frequently drive past Walden Pond. I'm reminded of Henry David Thoreau's words, \"\"Simplify, simplify, simplify.\"\" In my opinion, fewer is better. 2 checkbooks? I don't see how that makes budgeting any easier. The normal set of expenses are easily kept as one bucket, one account. The savings 2&3 accounts can also be combined and tracked if you really want to think of them as separate accounts. Now, when you talk about 'Retirement' that can be in tax-wise retirement accounts, e.g. 401(k), IRA, etc. or post tax regular brokerage accounts. In our situation, the Schwab non-retirement account was able to handle emergency (as money market funds) along with vacation/rainy day, etc, in CDs of different maturities. As an old person, I remember CDs at 10% or higher, so leaving money in lower interest accounts wasn't good. Cash would go to CDs at 1-5 year maturities to maximize interest, but keep money maturing every 6-9 months. Even with the goal of simplifying, my wife and I each have a 401(k), an IRA, and a Roth IRA, I also have an inherited Roth, and I manage my teen's Roth and brokerage accounts. That's 9 accounts right there. No way to reduce it. To wrap it up, I'd go back to the first 4 you listed, and use the #4 checking attached to the broker account to be the emergency fund. Now you're at 3. Any higher granularity can be done with a spreadsheet. Think of it this way - the day you see the house you love, will you not be so willing to give up that year's vacation?\"" }, { "docid": "490867", "title": "", "text": "Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods." }, { "docid": "571142", "title": "", "text": "Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated." }, { "docid": "127664", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employment status is not 100% clear from the question. Normally, consultants are sole-proprietors or LLC's and are paid with 1099's. They take care of their own taxes, often with schedule C, and they sometimes can but generally do not use \"\"employer\"\" company 401(k). If this is your situation, you can contact any provider you want and set up your own solo 401(k), which will have great investment options and no fees. I do this, through Fidelity. If you are paid with a W2, you are not a consultant. You are an employee and must use your employer's 401(k). Figure out what you are. If you are a consultant, open a solo 401(k) at the provider of your choice. Make sure beforehand that they allow incoming rollovers. Roll all of your previous 401(k)s and IRA's into it. When you have moved your 401(k) to a better provider, you won't be paying any extra fees, but you will not recoup any fees your original provider charged. I'm not sure why you mention a Roth IRA. If you try to roll your 401(k) into a Roth instead of a traditional IRA or 401(k), be aware that you will be taxed on everything you roll. ---- Edit: a little info about IRA's in response to your comment ---- Tax advantaged retirement accounts come in two flavors: one is managed by your company and the money is taken out of your paycheck. This is usually a 401(k) or 403(b). You can contribute up to $18K per year and your company can also contribute to it. The other flavor is an IRA. You can contribute $5,500 per year to this for you and $5,500 for your spouse. These are outside of your company and you make the deposits yourself. You choose your own provider, so competition has driven prices way down. You can have both a 401(k) and an IRA and contribute the max to both (though at high incomes you lose the ability to deduct IRA contributions). These accounts are tax advantaged because you only pay taxes once. With a regular brokerage account, you pay income tax in the year in which you earn money, then you pay tax every year on dividends and any capital gains that have been realized by selling. There are two types of tax-advantaged accounts: Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k). You do not pay income tax on this money in the year you earn it, nor do you pay capital gains tax. Instead you pay tax only in the year in which you take the money out (in retirement). Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). You do pay income tax on money on this money in the year in which you earn it. But then you don't pay tax on any gains or withdrawals ever again. When you leave your job (and sometimes at other times) you can move your money out of a 401(k) into your IRA, where you can do a better job managing it. You can also move money from your IRA into a 401(k) if your 401(k) provider will allow you to. Whether traditional or Roth is better depends on your tax rate now and your tax rate at retirement. However, if you choose to move money from a traditional account into a Roth account, you must pay tax on it in that year as if it was income because traditional and Roth accounts are taxed at different times. For that reason, if you are just trying to move money out of your 401(k) to save on fees, the logical place to put it is in a traditional IRA. Moving money from a traditional to a Roth may make sense, for example, if your tax rate is temporarily low this year, but that would be a separate decision from the one you are looking at. You can always roll your traditional IRA into a Roth later if that does become the case. Otherwise, there's no reason to think your traditional 401(k) should be rolled into a Roth IRA according to what you have described.\"" }, { "docid": "380615", "title": "", "text": "401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not." }, { "docid": "449828", "title": "", "text": "\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"" }, { "docid": "452830", "title": "", "text": "A few years ago I had been contributing with my employer to a 401(k). When I then moved abroad, I found it difficult to stay in touch with my 401(k). The toll-free numbers I had used inside the US, to contact the plan administrators, did not work from overseas." }, { "docid": "591168", "title": "", "text": "\"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"" }, { "docid": "394549", "title": "", "text": "\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "134931", "title": "", "text": "At 22yo, unless you have a terminal illness, you have many years to earn and save a lot more that you will have in your 401k right now (unless you have already been extremely lucky in the market with your 401k investments). This means that even if you lost everything in your 401k right now, it probably wouldn't hurt you that much over the long term. The net present value of all your future savings should far exceed the net present value of your 401k, if you plan to earn and save responsibly. So take as much risk as you want with it right now. There is no real benefit to playing safe with investments at your age. If you were asking me how much risk should you be taking with a $10m inheritance and no income or much prospects of an income, then I'd be giving you a very different answer." } ]

[ { "docid": "279570", "title": "", "text": "\"First, the limit this year is $16,500, $22,000 for age 50 or older. Next, does the company give you any match? If so, how much? Some will match your deposits dollar for dollar up to a certain percent of your pay. If you make $50k and deposit say 6%, that's $3k matched by company, for example. This deposit/match is the first priority. Next, you should understand the expenses in the account. A bad 401(k) with high cost quickly negates any tax deferral benefit. The 401(k) options also may be limited, what are the choices of investments? Is your income high enough that you can save $21,500? One thought is to save enough to drop back out of the 25% bracket, and go Roth after that. This is a good balance for most. By the way, Fairmark is a great site to see what bracket you are in. If your return is simple, you can just find your standard deduction and exemption numbers and get to your taxable income very simply. The debate of of Roth vs Pretax (for both IRA and 401(k) accounts) can get pretty complex, but I found the majority of earners falling into the \"\"live in the 15% bracket, tops\"\" range.\"" }, { "docid": "412", "title": "", "text": "The details of the 401(k) are critical to the decision. A high cost (the expenses charged within the) 401(k) - I would deposit only to the match, and I'd be sure to get the entire match offered. In which case, that $3000 might be good to have available if you start out with a tight budget. Low cost 401(k) w/match - a no-brainer, deposit what you can afford. Roth 401(k) w/match - same rules for expenses apply, with the added note to use Roth when getting started and in a lower bracket. Yes, it makes sense to have both. You should note, depositing to the Roth now is riskless. The account, not the investment. If you decide next year you didn't want it, you can withdraw the deposit with no penalty or tax. Edit to respond to updated question - there are two pieces to the Roth deposit issue. The deposit itself, which puts the $3000 earned income into tax sheltered account, and the choice to invest. These two are sequential and you can take your time in between. I'm not sure what you mean by the dividend timing. In an IRA or 401(k) the dividend isn't taxed, so it's a non-issue. In a cash account, you might quickly have a small tax issue, but this doesn't come into the picture in the tax deferred accounts." }, { "docid": "194776", "title": "", "text": "The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that." }, { "docid": "269385", "title": "", "text": "I think you understood much of what I say, in general. Unfortunately, I didn't follow Patches math. What I gleen from your summary is a 1% match to the 10% invested, but a .8% expense. The ETF VOO has a .05% annual fee, a bit better than SPY. A quick few calculations show that the 10% bonus does offset a long run of the .75% excess expense compared to external investing. After decades, the 401(k) appears to still be a bit ahead. Not the dramatic delta suggested in the prior answer, but enough to stay with the 401(k) in this situation. The tiny match still makes the difference. Edit - the question you linked to. The 401(k) had no match, and an awful 1.2% annual expense. This combination is deadly for the younger investor. Always an exception to offer - a 25% marginal rate earner close to retiring at 15%. The 401(k) deposit saves him 25, but can soon be withdrawn at 15, it's worth a a few years of that fee to make this happen. For the young person who is planning a quick exit from the company, same deal." }, { "docid": "163287", "title": "", "text": "\"Your initial plan (of minimizing your interest rate, and taking advantage of the 401(k) match) makes sense, except I would put the 401(k) money in a very low risk investment (such as a money market fund) while the stock market seems to be in a bear market. How to decide when the stock market is in a bear market is a separate question. You earn a 100% return immediately on money that receives the company match -- provided that you stay at the company long enough for the company match to \"\"vest\"\". This immediate 100% return far exceeds the 3.25% return by paying down debt. As long as it makes sense to keep your retirement funds in low-risk, low-return investments, it makes more sense to use your remaining free cash flow to pay down debts than to save extra money in retirement funds. After setting aside the 6% of your income that is eligible for the company match, you should be able to rapidly pay down your debts. This will make it far easier for you to qualify for a mortgage later on. Also, if you can pay off your debt in a couple years, you will minimize your risk from the proposed variable rate. First, there will be fewer chances for the rate to go up. Second, even if the rate does go up, you will not owe the money very long.\"" }, { "docid": "74864", "title": "", "text": "I decided to open it with funds b/c the checking account I have is used as a savings, and has been stagnant. Doesn't make any noticeable interest, and I'm not tapping into it for now. Figured why not get some of it moving. Especially since I'm not working right now and am not contributing to retirement otherwise. The old 401(k)s have been sitting still for many years, and aren't that full. Really miss my old deferred compensation fund, that does well even when I'm not contributing!" }, { "docid": "590902", "title": "", "text": "What you're describing is called timing the market. That is, if you correctly predict when the market will drop, you can sell before the drop, wait for the drop, then buy after the drop has occurred. Sell high, buy low. The fundamental problem with that, though, is: What ends up happening, on average, is you end up slightly behind. There's quite a lot of literature on this; see Betterment's explanation for example. Forbes (click through ad first) also has a detailed piece on the matter. Now, we're not really talking HFT issues here; and there are some structural things that some argue you can take advantage of (restrictions on some organizational investors, for example, similar to a blackjack dealer who has to hit on 16). However, everyone else knows about these too - so it's hard to gain much of an edge. Plenty of people say they can time the market right, and even yourself perhaps you timed a particular drop accurately. This tends to lead to false confidence though; how many drops that you timed badly do you remember? Ultimately, most investors end up slightly down when they attempt to time the market, because of the transaction costs (if you guess two drops, one 'right' and one 'wrong', and they have exactly opposite gains/losses before commissions, you will lose a bit on each due to commission), and because of the overall upward trend in the market (ie, if you picked at random one month a year to be out of the market, you'd lose around 10% annualized gains from doing that; same applies here). All of that aside, there is one major caveat: risk tolerance. If you are highly risk tolerant, say a 30 year old investing your 401(k), then you should stay in no matter what. If you're not - say you're 58 and retiring in a few years - then knowledge that there's a higher risk time period coming up might suggest moving to a less risky portfolio, even at the known cost of some gains." }, { "docid": "224434", "title": "", "text": "My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule." }, { "docid": "417257", "title": "", "text": "You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do." }, { "docid": "449696", "title": "", "text": "I applied to a travel credit card after my local branch of Bank of America told me I should look into it due to my constant traveling. I've been with them for 3 years and have never had an issue and I was declined on my travel credit card even though I have a decent credit score of 730. I'm also a 22 year old and have my senior year of school to finish but have always been good with Bank of America. Is it because I'm young?" }, { "docid": "336144", "title": "", "text": "\"Why it is good to be risky The reason why it is good to be risky is because risky investments can result in higher returns on your money. The problem with being risky, is there is a chance you can lose money. However, in the long term you can usually benefit from higher returns even if you have a few slip ups. Let me show you an example: These two lines are based off of placing $2,000 in a retirement fund at age of 20 and then at age of 25 start investing $6,500 a year (based off of a salary of $65,000 with a company that will 1 to 1 match up to 5% IRA contribution, presumably someone with a Master's should be able to get this) and then being able to increase your contribution amount by $150 a year as your salary begins to increase as well. The blue line assumes that all of this money that you are putting in a retirement account has a fixed 3% interest (compounded yearly for simplicity sake) every year until you retire. The red line is earning a 12% interest rate while you are 20 years old and then decreasing by 0.5% per year until you retire. Since this is using more risky investments when you are younger, I have even gone ahead and included losing 20% of your money when you are 24, another 20% when you are 29, and then again another 20% when you are 34. As you can see, even with losing 20% of your money 3 different times, you still end up with more money then you would have had if you stuck with a more conservative investment plan. If I change this to 50% each 3 times, you will still come out about equal to a more conservative investment. Now, I do have these 3 loses placed at a younger age when there is less to lose, but this is to be expected since you are being more risky when you are young. When you are closer to retirement you have less of a chance of losing money since you will be investing more conservatively. Why it is OK to be risky when you are young but not old Lets say you loose 20% of your $2,000 when you are young, you have 30-40 years to make that back. That's roughly $1 a month extra that you are having to come up with. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are young, you have plenty of time to account for it before you retire. Now lets say you have $1,000,000 when you are 5 years from retiring and loose 20% of it, you have to come up with an extra $3,333 a month if you want to retire on time. So, if you have a risky investment go bad when you are close to retiring, you will most likely have to work for many more years just to be able to recover from your loses. What to invest in This is a little bit more difficult question to answer. If there was one \"\"right\"\" way to invest your money, every one would be doing that one \"\"right\"\" way and would result in it not turning out to be that good of investment. What you need to do is come up with a plan for yourself. My biggest advice that I can give is to be careful with fees. Some places will charge a fixed dollar amount per trade, while others might charge a fixed dollar amount per month, while even others might charge a percentage of your investment. With only having $2,000 to invest, a large fee might make it difficult to make money.\"" }, { "docid": "394549", "title": "", "text": "\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"" }, { "docid": "417388", "title": "", "text": "The 401(k) contribution is Federal tax free, when you make the contribution, and most likely State too. I believe that is true for California, specifically. There was a court case some years ago about people making 401(k) or IRA contributions in New York, avoiding the New York state income tax. Then they moved to Florida (no income tax), and took the money out. New York sued, saying they had to pay the New York income tax that had been deferred, but the court said no. So you should be able to avoid California state income tax, and then later if you were to move to, for example, Texas (no income tax), have no state income tax liability. At the Federal level, you will have different problems. You won't have the money; it will be held by the 401(k) trustee. When you try to access the money (cash the account out), you will have to pay the deferred taxes. Effectively, when you remove the money it becomes income in the year it is removed. You can take the money out at any time, but if you are less than 59 1/2 at the time that you take it, there is a 10% penalty. The agreement is that the Feds let you defer paying the tax because it is going to finance your retirement, and they will tax it later. If you take it out before 59 1/2, they figure you are not retired yet, and are breaking your part of the agreement. Of course you can generally leave the money in the 401(k) plan with your old employer and let it grow until you are 59.5, or roll it over into another 401(k) with a new employer (if they let you), or into an IRA. But if you have returned to your own country, having an account in the U.S. would introduce both investment risk and currency risk. If you are in another country when you want the money, the question would be where your U.S. residence would be. If you live in California, then go to, say France, your U.S. residence would still be California, and you would still owe California income tax. If you move from California to Texas and then to France, your U.S. residence would be Texas. This is pretty vague, as you might have heard in the Rahm Emanual case -- was he a resident of Chicago or Washington, D.C.? Same problem with Howard Hughes who was born in Texas, but then spent most his life in California, then to Nevada, then to Nicaragua, and the Bahamas. When he died Texas, California and Nevada all claimed him as a resident, for estate taxes. The important thing is to be able to make a reasonable case that you are a resident of where ever you want to be -- driver's license, mailing address, living quarters, and so on." }, { "docid": "595875", "title": "", "text": "If it were my money, I wouldn't put it in a 401(k) for this purpose. If you were working at a company that provided 401(k) matching, then it might be worth it to put the money in your employer's 401(k) because the employer chips in based on what you put in. But you're self-employed, so there's no matching unless you match it yourself. (Correct?) So, given that there's no matching, a 401(k) arrangement would have more restrictions than a non-tax-advantaged account (like a bank account, or a taxable money market account). This would be taxable in the year you earn the money, but then that's it. If you're expecting to pull out the money pre-retirement, I wouldn't put it in in the first place." }, { "docid": "481793", "title": "", "text": "I moved from contributing 10% to maxing as my salary rose over the course of three years after graduation. Because of my raises, my monthly take home still increased, so it was a pretty painless way to increase my 401(k) contribution and also avoid lifestyle inflation. That said, I would not do it if you have any credit card debt, school loans, or an auto loan. Pay that off first. Then work on maxing the 401(k). Personally I rate owning a home behind that, but that's partially because I'm in an area where the rent ratios are barely on the side of buying, so I don't find buying to be a pressing matter. One thing to investigate is if your company offers a Roth 401(k) option. It's a nice option where you can go Roth without worrying about income limits. My personal experience does not include a Roth IRA because when I still qualified for one I didn't know much about them, and now that I know about them I have the happy issue of not qualifying." }, { "docid": "406561", "title": "", "text": "\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"" }, { "docid": "520116", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a mildly exceptional relationship with Social Security. When I was eight years old my father died, leaving nothing but a mountain of debt and an apartment full of trinkets. My mother received Social Security Survivor benefits checks in lieu of his child support payments, which kept me fed and clothed until I graduated high school. She also worked, sometimes multiple jobs, and did what she could to provide health and stability. I consider myself privileged even though we were often financially ... Disadvantaged. When I graduated high school and the checks from Social Security ended, I went on to college, financed a good portion of it, but also received a lot of scholarships and aid along the way. As I near 30, I still wear enough student debt equivalent of a new, mid-class sedan, but I am financially solvent, work a good job, and can afford my own rent, child support, actual child costs, and regular living expenses. While I can still ferret away some of my income into my 401(k), I still need to save for my child's education. I still need to save up for a home. I still have to save up for – and often spend for - a more immediate future. I do not anticipate Social Security being available to in any meaningful sense of the word, when I retire. But I \"\"already got mine\"\" in a sense, and I consider my SSI deductions to be contributions back into the system that kept me fed, kept me healthy, an kept me teachable. I preferred the notion that Social Security didn't become available until someone had exceeded their life expectancy. I preferred the notion that Social Security should never need to be used by anyone. I would much rather the safetynet never be depended upon. But the contributions were much appreciated all the same, and I can now appreciate how those contributions need to be a bit more randomized, more spread across the populace. I am pretty sure this is enough to have people shrieking a me that I'm done kind of socialist. All I know is that I miss that 4% from my paychecks (and I'll miss the full 6% when the \"\"holiday\"\" ends) but that it might help someone thrive, like it did me. My only regret is that the safety net is squandered on old people.\"" }, { "docid": "489790", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\"" }, { "docid": "88539", "title": "", "text": "There are two significant drawbacks to this type of transfer. They were the reasons why I kept my American 401(k) as-is and started funding my Canadian RRSP from zero balance. 1. Taxes - a large chunk of your 401(k) will be lost to taxes. There is probably no way to transfer the funds without making a 401(k)/IRA withdrawal, which will incur the US federal tax and the 10% early-withdrawal penalty. When the money went into the 401(k), you got a tax deduction in the US and the tax break is supposed be repaid later when you make a withdrawal (that's basically how tax deferral works). It's unlikely that any country will let you take a deduction first and send the payback to a foreign country. The withdrawal amount may also be taxable in Canada (Canadians generally pay taxes on their global income and that includes pensions and distributions from foreign retirement plans). Foreign tax credit will apply of course, to eliminate double taxation, but it's of little help if your marginal Canadian tax rate is higher than your average US tax rate. 2. Expenses. Your RRSP will have to be invested in something and mutual fund management expenses are generally higher in Canada than in the US. For example, my employer-sponsored RRSP has a Standard & Poor's stock index fund that charges 1.5% and that is considered low-cost. It also offers a number of managed funds with expenses in excess of 2% that I simply ignore. You can probably invest your American 401(k)/IRA in mutual funds more efficiently." } ]

[ { "docid": "356595", "title": "", "text": "Whatever you do, don't take your retirement savings to Vegas. Second, you should also consider investment expenses. Your investments profit after the managers pay themselves. Get the lowest expense ratio mutual funds you can. Third, most active managers do not beat the market. Index funds are your friends. They also tend to have the lower expense ratios." } ]

[ { "docid": "449828", "title": "", "text": "\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"" }, { "docid": "490867", "title": "", "text": "Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods." }, { "docid": "417388", "title": "", "text": "The 401(k) contribution is Federal tax free, when you make the contribution, and most likely State too. I believe that is true for California, specifically. There was a court case some years ago about people making 401(k) or IRA contributions in New York, avoiding the New York state income tax. Then they moved to Florida (no income tax), and took the money out. New York sued, saying they had to pay the New York income tax that had been deferred, but the court said no. So you should be able to avoid California state income tax, and then later if you were to move to, for example, Texas (no income tax), have no state income tax liability. At the Federal level, you will have different problems. You won't have the money; it will be held by the 401(k) trustee. When you try to access the money (cash the account out), you will have to pay the deferred taxes. Effectively, when you remove the money it becomes income in the year it is removed. You can take the money out at any time, but if you are less than 59 1/2 at the time that you take it, there is a 10% penalty. The agreement is that the Feds let you defer paying the tax because it is going to finance your retirement, and they will tax it later. If you take it out before 59 1/2, they figure you are not retired yet, and are breaking your part of the agreement. Of course you can generally leave the money in the 401(k) plan with your old employer and let it grow until you are 59.5, or roll it over into another 401(k) with a new employer (if they let you), or into an IRA. But if you have returned to your own country, having an account in the U.S. would introduce both investment risk and currency risk. If you are in another country when you want the money, the question would be where your U.S. residence would be. If you live in California, then go to, say France, your U.S. residence would still be California, and you would still owe California income tax. If you move from California to Texas and then to France, your U.S. residence would be Texas. This is pretty vague, as you might have heard in the Rahm Emanual case -- was he a resident of Chicago or Washington, D.C.? Same problem with Howard Hughes who was born in Texas, but then spent most his life in California, then to Nevada, then to Nicaragua, and the Bahamas. When he died Texas, California and Nevada all claimed him as a resident, for estate taxes. The important thing is to be able to make a reasonable case that you are a resident of where ever you want to be -- driver's license, mailing address, living quarters, and so on." }, { "docid": "31462", "title": "", "text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"" }, { "docid": "417446", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market? You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return. This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight. Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - \"\"annuities are sold, not bought\"\") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you. At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you. Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it. Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio. (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with.\"" }, { "docid": "88539", "title": "", "text": "There are two significant drawbacks to this type of transfer. They were the reasons why I kept my American 401(k) as-is and started funding my Canadian RRSP from zero balance. 1. Taxes - a large chunk of your 401(k) will be lost to taxes. There is probably no way to transfer the funds without making a 401(k)/IRA withdrawal, which will incur the US federal tax and the 10% early-withdrawal penalty. When the money went into the 401(k), you got a tax deduction in the US and the tax break is supposed be repaid later when you make a withdrawal (that's basically how tax deferral works). It's unlikely that any country will let you take a deduction first and send the payback to a foreign country. The withdrawal amount may also be taxable in Canada (Canadians generally pay taxes on their global income and that includes pensions and distributions from foreign retirement plans). Foreign tax credit will apply of course, to eliminate double taxation, but it's of little help if your marginal Canadian tax rate is higher than your average US tax rate. 2. Expenses. Your RRSP will have to be invested in something and mutual fund management expenses are generally higher in Canada than in the US. For example, my employer-sponsored RRSP has a Standard & Poor's stock index fund that charges 1.5% and that is considered low-cost. It also offers a number of managed funds with expenses in excess of 2% that I simply ignore. You can probably invest your American 401(k)/IRA in mutual funds more efficiently." }, { "docid": "422421", "title": "", "text": "First, read my answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing For me, the answer to your question comes down to how badly you want to get rid of your student loan debt. I recommend that you get rid of it as fast as possible, and that you sacrifice a little in your budget temporarily to make that happen. If that is what you want, here is what I would do. Following the steps in my other answer, I would pay off the student loans first. Cash out your non-retirement growth fund to jump start that, then challenge yourself to take as much of your paycheck as you can and throw it at the debt. Figure out how many months it will take before the debt is gone. Once the debt is gone, you won't have those monthly payments anymore and you won't be continually losing money in interest to the bank. At that point, you can build up your cash savings, invest in your employer's 401(k) plan for retirement, and start saving toward other long-term saving goals (car, house, etc.) To address some of your other concerns: If you cash out the non-retirement fund, you'll probably owe some capital gains tax. (Although, on a $3k investment, the long term rate won't add up to very much, depending on your tax bracket and cost basis.) You can't use the money from your non-retirement fund to invest in your 401(k). You can only contribute to your 401(k) via payroll deduction. To explicitly answer your question, your non-retirement fund is not bound by the limitations of retirement funds, meaning that you can cash it out and use it however you like without penalty, only paying perhaps a few hundred dollars of capital gains tax at tax time next year. Think of it as another source of cash for you." }, { "docid": "74864", "title": "", "text": "I decided to open it with funds b/c the checking account I have is used as a savings, and has been stagnant. Doesn't make any noticeable interest, and I'm not tapping into it for now. Figured why not get some of it moving. Especially since I'm not working right now and am not contributing to retirement otherwise. The old 401(k)s have been sitting still for many years, and aren't that full. Really miss my old deferred compensation fund, that does well even when I'm not contributing!" }, { "docid": "439249", "title": "", "text": "\"With no match, the traditional 401(k) for someone otherwise in the 15% bracket makes little sense. I'd suggest contributing just enough if you were in the 25% bracket to be in the taxable 15% but no more. Use a Roth IRA if you are saving more than that. I'm adding this based on OP's statement that the fees on the 401(k) range .8-1.4%. I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? in which I discuss how fees of this range negate the benefit of the mantra \"\"save at 25% to withdraw at 15%\"\" and if one were in the 15% bracket to start, this level off fee will cost you money in no time at all. The people advising you to max out the 401(k) first, given the rest of your situation and that of the account, are misguided. I'd given them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't have all the details. And with all due respect to the other posters here, everyone of them a bright, valued colleague, your answers should be addressed to the OP's exact situation. 15% bracket, no match, high fees. I suspect some of answers will change on reviewing this.\"" }, { "docid": "397553", "title": "", "text": "T. Rowe is my new 401 k company and they have been pretty professional the problem was they required information from my old employer who refused to give it to them. But I am in touch my my old 401 k account and will be doing some more research into the companies and processes you guys have given me amd try to choose what is best for me" }, { "docid": "19973", "title": "", "text": "\"Will it be more money for me now if I don't take it out? Yes Will it be more money for for my retirement if I do? Yes The difference will be the existence of a match and tax-deferral. If there is a match then you will have an instant 100% gain on the amount that is matched. From a tax standpoint, putting some in your 401(k) now will reduce your taxes this year - you will instead pay tax when you withdraw the money at retirement (the withdrawal will be considered \"\"income\"\" at that time). Other decision points: If there is no match, but you still want to add to retirement savings, then you could alternatively put the money in an IRA, which will give you more control over your investments than a 401(k) (which could be good or bad, depending on how investment savvy you are).\"" }, { "docid": "396097", "title": "", "text": "You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns. Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains. The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it. This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA. So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs. If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur. You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year. These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on. With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years." }, { "docid": "253552", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, the numbers you give are most probably nowhere near the total expenses you have/need to budget: Maybe you should have a look at the expenses you had over the last years (look at how much money came in and how much went to the savings and compare this expenses to the sum of all the expenses you have on your list of expenses as plausibility check. Just starting on some numbers you give and assuming the house is the main goal. House of 300 - 500 k€, assuming downpayment of 30 - 40 %, i.e. somewhere between 90 and 200 k€. I'll go on calculating with 150 k€ which would be 50 % of 300 k€ or 30 % of 500 k€. You want to be there in 8 - 15 a: this means saving 10 - 19 k€ per year. 19 k€/a is clearly impossible with 20 k€ net wage. 10 k€ with 20 k€ net wage means a savings quote of 50 %, so for each € you spend, one goes towards the house. This is doable in the sense that if you continue with 4 k€/a for rent plus a Harz 4 (= 400 €/month) style of life, that would put you to 9 k€ expenses/a, thus 1 k€ saving for unexpected disaster (I'd actually first get a couple of k€ together for such things, and then go as much as possible towards the house). Still, this is not the life style the rest of your goals sounds like. (You can update this somewhat with the expected income of your girlfriend/wife. But remember that she needs food and clothes as well and you assume she'll need a car of her own) Let me rephrase the savings goal of 150 k€: you'd try to save 3 times the median German household equity within 8 to 15 years. This should tell you that it is a very steep proposition. On the other hand, e.g. Slowakians manage to have a median household equity of ca 60 k€ out of a median income that is roughly half the median income in Germany. So again it is somehow possible, but it will be really tough to live a life style like a Slowakian or Harz 4ler between peers that spend roughly everything (good approximation as we're talking about savings rates above 50 % of net income) they earn. I think the \"\"easiest\"\" way to get your savings going is to postpone lifestyle upgrades. On the other hand, around Waldeck, 150 k€ would buy you a complete new house of the same size that costs 300 - 500 k€ around Darmstadt. So if you really want to go for the house, I'd recommend not only to save as hard as you can*, but also to look out for possibilities to relocate to a cheaper area. 8 - 15 years should be enough time to decide what area you'd like and then to look for an opportunity without too much pressure. And actually this should be enough time so that also your girlfriend/wife could get herself transferred to another Bundesland. * In reality saving as hard as possible will probably get you nowhere near 150 k€ (there are very few people who manage to do this - though they exist), but if you get to 75 k€ that would mean a reasonably good position for both starting negotiations with the bank about buying a 150 k€ house plus the corresponding payment of the mortgage. If you get there within less than 15 years that would also leave some air in case you change opinion with regard to kids and then leaves a reasonable amount of time to put together your pension. Consider your psychology about saving towards the house. Even if both of you know that you want it really hard, it may be good to enter a building savings contract (15 years should be reasonable for that way) which will enforce you to keep up the savings rate and also does not allow you to divert money for other purposes. However, I'd say that 6 months into the first job it may be a bit early to fix such savings rates. Maybe for the beginning a savings account that includes some hassle to get the money out again (set low limit and allow any outgoing money to go only to another account of yours) with an automatic savings deposit every month is a way how to safely determine the savings rate you can manage. Maybe you can use this to first put together your new emergency savings which should be first priority anyways. If you want to cut expenses in order to save, look at the recommendations for people who try to get out of debt: budget your expenses, cook yourself and enjoy this (maybe taking a cooking class together with your girlfriend is a lot of fun, leads to food that may even be more to your taste than restaurant stuff - and is much cheaper), keep book, pay in cash (not by card) and so on. If you're not a DIY person, try whether you could enjoy becoming one - no magic involved there. I guess the most important point is to find out how much you want the house and then how hard you are willing to save. This is something only you and your girlfriend can decide (together!). IMHO you really don't need to invest (unless you drop the house plan), you need to save towards your goals. You may decide to invest a small part of the money while saving in order to learn slowly how that works, but if the house goal is already kind of fixed in time, you don't want to find yourself in the situation that you have to get out of investments at a bad time in order to be able to buy the house. Even if you consider 15 years long enough to do some investing now and then get out some time during the next 15 years, you don't have any money to invest now. Later, the risk posed by the fixed point in time when you need the money is too large: Considering the rather steep saving propositions, the marginal costs of having less money are really large. This means you don't want to go for risky investments => plain old saving is what you need. Consider also that low house prices tend to come during economic crisis (people cannot pay mortgage and have to sell) so within the time window, you want to have your money for anticyclic buying if possible.\"" }, { "docid": "367272", "title": "", "text": "One thing you didn't mention is whether the 401(k) offers a match. If it does, this is a slam-dunk. The $303 ($303, right?) is $3636/yr that will be doubled on deposit. It's typical for the first 5% of one's salary to capture the match, so this is right there. In 15 years, you'll still owe $76,519. But 15 * $7272 is $109,080 in your 401(k) even without taking any growth into account. The likely value of that 401(k) is closer to $210K, using 8% over that 15 years, (At 6%, it drops to 'only' $176K, but as I stated, the value of the match is so great that I'd jump right on that.) If you don't get a match of any kind, I need to edit / completely rip my answer. It morphs into whether you feel that 15 years (Really 30) the market will exceed the 4% cost of that money. Odds are, it will. The worst 15 year period this past century 2000-2014 still had a CAGR of 4.2%." }, { "docid": "224434", "title": "", "text": "My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule." }, { "docid": "424841", "title": "", "text": "If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances." }, { "docid": "60032", "title": "", "text": "\"This turned out be a lot longer than I expected. So, here's the overview. Despite the presence of asset allocation calculators and what not, this is a subjective matter. Only you know how much risk you are willing to take. You seem to be aware of one rule of thumb, namely that with a longer investing horizon you can stand to take on more risk. However, how much risk you should take is subject to your own risk aversion. Honestly, the best way to answer your questions is to educate yourself about the individual topics. There are just too many variables to provide neat, concise answers to such a broad question. There are no easy ways around this. You should not blindly rely on the opinions of others, but rather use your own judgment to asses their advice. Some of the links I provide in the main text: S&P 500: Total and Inflation-Adjusted Historical Returns 10-year index fund returns The Motley Fool Risk aversion Disclaimer: These are the opinions of an enthusiastic amateur. Why should I invest 20% in domestic large cap and 10% in developing markets instead of 10% in domestic large cap and 20% in developing markets? Should I invest in REITs? Why or why not? Simply put, developing markets are very risky. Even if you have a long investment horizon, you should pace yourself and not take on too much risk. How much is \"\"too much\"\" is ultimately subjective. Specific to why 10% in developing vs 20% in large cap, it is probably because 10% seems like a reasonable amount of your total portfolio to gamble. Another way to look at this is to consider that 10% as gone, because it is invested in very risky markets. So, if you're willing to take a 20% haircut, then by all means do that. However, realize that you may be throwing 1/5 of your money out the window. Meanwhile, REITs can be quite risky as investing in the real estate market itself can be quite risky. One reason is that the assets are very much fixed in place and thus can not be liquidated in the same way as other assets. Thus, you are subject to the vicissitudes of a relatively small market. Another issue is the large capital outlays required for most commercial building projects, thus typically requiring quite a bit of credit and risk. Another way to put it: Donald Trump made his name in real estate, but it was (and still is) a very bumpy ride. Yet another way to put it: you have to build it before they will come and there is no guarantee that they will like what you built. What mutual funds or index funds should I investigate to implement these strategies? I would generally avoid actively managed mutual funds, due to the expenses. They can seriously eat into the returns. There is a reason that the most mutual funds compare themselves to the Lipper average instead of something like the S&P 500. All of those costs involved in managing a mutual fund (teams of people and trading costs) tend to weigh down on them quite heavily. As the Motley Fool expounded on years ago, if you can not do better than the S&P 500, you should save yourself the headaches and simply invest in an S&P 500 index fund. That said, depending on your skill (and luck) picking stocks (or even funds), you may very well have been able to beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Of course, you may have also done a whole lot worse. This article discusses the performance of the S&P 500 over the past 60 years. As you can see, the past 10 years have been a very bumpy ride yielding in a negative return. Again, keep in mind that you could have done much worse with other investments. That site, Simple Stock Investing may be a good place to start educating yourself. I am not familiar with the site, so do not take this as an endorsement. A quick once-over of the material on the site leads me to believe that it may provide a good bit of information in readily digestible forms. The Motley Fool was a favorite site of mine in the past for the individual investor. However, they seem to have turned to the dark side, charging for much of their advice. That said, it may still be a good place to get started. You may also decide that it is worth paying for their advice. This blog post, though dated, compares some Vanguard index funds and is a light introduction into the contrarian view of investing. Simply put, this view holds that one should not be a lemming following the crowd, rather one should do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. One strong argument in favor of this view is the fact that as more people pile onto an investing strategy or into a particular market, the yields thin out and the risk of a correction (i.e. a downturn) increases. In the worst case, this leads to a bubble, which corrects itself suddenly (or \"\"pops\"\" thus the term \"\"bubble\"\") leading to quite a bit of pain for the unprepared participants. An unprepared participant is one who is not hedged properly. Basically, this means they were not invested in other markets/strategies that would increase in yield as a result of the event that caused the bubble to pop. Note that the recent housing bubble and resulting credit crunch beat quite heavily on the both the stock and bond markets. So, the easy hedge for stocks being bonds did not necessarily work out so well. This makes sense, as the housing bubble burst due to concerns over easy credit. Unfortunately, I don't have any good resources on hand that may provide starting points or discuss the various investing strategies. I must admit that I am turning my interests back to investing after a hiatus. As I stated, I used to really like the Motley Fool, but now I am somewhat suspicious of them. The main reason is the fact that as they were exploring alternatives to advertising driven revenue for their site, they promised to always have free resources available for those unwilling to pay for their advice. A cursory review of their site does show a decent amount of general investing information, so take these words with a grain of salt. (Another reason I am suspicious of them is the fact that they \"\"spammed\"\" me with lots of enticements to pay for their advice which seemed just like the type of advice they spoke against.) Anyway, time to put the soapbox away. As I do that though, I should explain the reason for this soapboxing. Simply put, investing is a risky endeavor, any way you slice it. You can never eliminate risk, you can only hope to reduce it to an acceptable level. What is acceptable is subject to your situation and to the magnitude of your risk aversion. Ultimately, it is rather subjective and you should not blindly follow someone else's opinion (professional or otherwise). Point being, use your judgment to evaluate anything you read about investing. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If someone purports to have some strategy for guaranteed (steady) returns, be very suspicious of it. (Read up on the Bernard Madoff scandal.) If someone is putting on a heavy sales pitch, be weary. Be especially suspicious of anyone asking you to pay for their advice before giving you any solid understanding of their strategy. Sure, many people want to get paid for their advice in some way (in fact, I am getting \"\"paid\"\" with reputation on this site). However, if they take the sketchy approach of a slimy salesmen, they are likely making more money from selling their strategy, than they are from the advice itself. Most likely, if they were getting outsized returns from their strategy they would keep quiet about it and continue using it themselves. As stated before, the more people pile onto a strategy, the smaller the returns. The typical model for selling is to make money from the sale. When the item being sold is an intangible good, your risk as a buyer increases. You may wonder why I have written at length without much discussion of asset allocation. One reason is that I am still a relative neophyte and have a mostly high level understanding of the various strategies. While I feel confident enough in my understanding for my own purposes, I do not necessarily feel confident creating an asset allocation strategy for someone else. The more important reason is that this is a subjective matter with a lot of variables to consider. If you want a quick and simple answer, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The best approach is to educate yourself and make these decisions for yourself. Hence, my attempt to educate you as best as I can at this point in time. Personally, I suggest you do what I did. Start reading the Wall Street Journal every day. (An acceptable substitute may be the business section of the New York Times.) At first you will be overwhelmed with information, but in the long run it will pay off. Another good piece of advice is to be patient and not rush into investing. If you are in a hurry to determine how you should invest in a 401(k) or other such investment vehicle due to a desire to take advantage of an employer's matching funds, then I would place my money in an S&P 500 index fund. I would also explore placing some of that money into broad index funds from other regions of the globe. The reason for broad index funds is to provide some protection from the normal fluctuations and to reduce the risk of a sudden downturn causing you a lot pain while you determine the best approach for yourself. In this scenario, think more about capital preservation and hedging against inflation then about \"\"beating\"\" the market.\"" }, { "docid": "387011", "title": "", "text": "\"On thing the questioner should do is review the Summary Plan Description (SPD) for the 401(k) plan. This MAY have details on any plan imposed limits on salary deferrals. If the SPD does not have sufficient detail, the questioner should request a complete copy of current plan document and then review this with someone who knows how to read plan documents. The document for a 401(k) plan CAN specify a maximum percentage of compensation that a participant in the 401(k) plan can defer REGARDLESS of the maximum dollar deferral limit in Internal Revenue Code Section 402(g). For example, the document for a 401(k) plan can provide that participants can elect to defer any amount of their compensation (salary) BUT not to exceed ten percent (10%). Thus, someone whose salary is $50,000 per year will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $5,000. Someone making $150,000 will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $15,000. This is true regardless of the fact that the 2013 dollar limit on salary deferrals is $17,500. This is also true regardless of whether or not a participant may want to defer more than ten percent (10%) of compensation. This \"\"plan imposed\"\" limit on salary deferral contributions is permissible assuming it is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. This plan imposed limit is entirely separate from any other rules or restrictions on salary deferral amounts that might be as a result of things like the average deferral percentage test.\"" }, { "docid": "449696", "title": "", "text": "I applied to a travel credit card after my local branch of Bank of America told me I should look into it due to my constant traveling. I've been with them for 3 years and have never had an issue and I was declined on my travel credit card even though I have a decent credit score of 730. I'm also a 22 year old and have my senior year of school to finish but have always been good with Bank of America. Is it because I'm young?" } ]

[ { "docid": "170625", "title": "", "text": "\"+1 on all the answers above. You're in a great position and have the right attitude. A good book on the subject is A Random Walk Down Wall Street - well worth a read. Essentially, go for low tax paying in, low tax taking out approach (in the uk that's a SIPP or ISA), a low cost well diversified unit fund (like a Vanguard LifeStrategy 100), on a low cost platform (\"\"Annual Management Charge\"\" in be UK). Keep paying a regular amount and let compound interest take care of things. I'd also add that you should think about what lifestyle you would want at specific ages and work out what you need to save to achieve these - even though they are probably a long time in the future, it makes your goals \"\"real\"\". Read Mr Money Moustache for some ideas http://www.mrmoneymustache.com\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "199237", "title": "", "text": "\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \"\"average out\"\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\"" }, { "docid": "163287", "title": "", "text": "\"Your initial plan (of minimizing your interest rate, and taking advantage of the 401(k) match) makes sense, except I would put the 401(k) money in a very low risk investment (such as a money market fund) while the stock market seems to be in a bear market. How to decide when the stock market is in a bear market is a separate question. You earn a 100% return immediately on money that receives the company match -- provided that you stay at the company long enough for the company match to \"\"vest\"\". This immediate 100% return far exceeds the 3.25% return by paying down debt. As long as it makes sense to keep your retirement funds in low-risk, low-return investments, it makes more sense to use your remaining free cash flow to pay down debts than to save extra money in retirement funds. After setting aside the 6% of your income that is eligible for the company match, you should be able to rapidly pay down your debts. This will make it far easier for you to qualify for a mortgage later on. Also, if you can pay off your debt in a couple years, you will minimize your risk from the proposed variable rate. First, there will be fewer chances for the rate to go up. Second, even if the rate does go up, you will not owe the money very long.\"" }, { "docid": "373119", "title": "", "text": "How can I use $4000 to make $250 per month for the rest of my life? This means the investment should generate close to 6.25% return per month or around 75% per year. There is no investment that gives this kind of return. The long term return of stock market is around 15-22% depending on the year range and country." }, { "docid": "421455", "title": "", "text": "\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"" }, { "docid": "439249", "title": "", "text": "\"With no match, the traditional 401(k) for someone otherwise in the 15% bracket makes little sense. I'd suggest contributing just enough if you were in the 25% bracket to be in the taxable 15% but no more. Use a Roth IRA if you are saving more than that. I'm adding this based on OP's statement that the fees on the 401(k) range .8-1.4%. I wrote an article Are you 401(k)o’ed? in which I discuss how fees of this range negate the benefit of the mantra \"\"save at 25% to withdraw at 15%\"\" and if one were in the 15% bracket to start, this level off fee will cost you money in no time at all. The people advising you to max out the 401(k) first, given the rest of your situation and that of the account, are misguided. I'd given them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't have all the details. And with all due respect to the other posters here, everyone of them a bright, valued colleague, your answers should be addressed to the OP's exact situation. 15% bracket, no match, high fees. I suspect some of answers will change on reviewing this.\"" }, { "docid": "253545", "title": "", "text": "If your SIMPLE IRA is over two years old then you can roll your money to another qualified account such as a rollover IRA. The usual rollover rules apply. You have 60 days to deposit the funds in another qualified account and you are only allowed one such rollover in a 12 month window. If you are still within two years of opening your SIMPLE IRA, you can roll your funds to a SIMPLE IRA with another vendor, but you would then have to wait until that account is two years old before rolling it elsewhere. If you roll the money another type of IRA before your SIMPLE IRA account is two-years old, and under 59 1/2 years old, you will be subject to a 25% penalty (which is much higher than for other types of accounts). Many of the early distribution exceptions apply such as disability, etc. Edit: The first document linked above covers rules for running a SIMPLE IRA. All the specific regulations linked in the second document apply to all IRAs of all types. There is no specific prohibition from rolling only a portion of the money to another qualified account. There are prohibitions against rolling money more than one time in a 12 month period. The usual obstacle to rolling money from a retirement account--like a 401(k)--is that the 401(k) plan is written to prohibit withdrawals while the employee is still employed at the company." }, { "docid": "214248", "title": "", "text": "\"I live near historic Concord, Massachusetts, and frequently drive past Walden Pond. I'm reminded of Henry David Thoreau's words, \"\"Simplify, simplify, simplify.\"\" In my opinion, fewer is better. 2 checkbooks? I don't see how that makes budgeting any easier. The normal set of expenses are easily kept as one bucket, one account. The savings 2&3 accounts can also be combined and tracked if you really want to think of them as separate accounts. Now, when you talk about 'Retirement' that can be in tax-wise retirement accounts, e.g. 401(k), IRA, etc. or post tax regular brokerage accounts. In our situation, the Schwab non-retirement account was able to handle emergency (as money market funds) along with vacation/rainy day, etc, in CDs of different maturities. As an old person, I remember CDs at 10% or higher, so leaving money in lower interest accounts wasn't good. Cash would go to CDs at 1-5 year maturities to maximize interest, but keep money maturing every 6-9 months. Even with the goal of simplifying, my wife and I each have a 401(k), an IRA, and a Roth IRA, I also have an inherited Roth, and I manage my teen's Roth and brokerage accounts. That's 9 accounts right there. No way to reduce it. To wrap it up, I'd go back to the first 4 you listed, and use the #4 checking attached to the broker account to be the emergency fund. Now you're at 3. Any higher granularity can be done with a spreadsheet. Think of it this way - the day you see the house you love, will you not be so willing to give up that year's vacation?\"" }, { "docid": "371886", "title": "", "text": "The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices." }, { "docid": "387011", "title": "", "text": "\"On thing the questioner should do is review the Summary Plan Description (SPD) for the 401(k) plan. This MAY have details on any plan imposed limits on salary deferrals. If the SPD does not have sufficient detail, the questioner should request a complete copy of current plan document and then review this with someone who knows how to read plan documents. The document for a 401(k) plan CAN specify a maximum percentage of compensation that a participant in the 401(k) plan can defer REGARDLESS of the maximum dollar deferral limit in Internal Revenue Code Section 402(g). For example, the document for a 401(k) plan can provide that participants can elect to defer any amount of their compensation (salary) BUT not to exceed ten percent (10%). Thus, someone whose salary is $50,000 per year will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $5,000. Someone making $150,000 will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $15,000. This is true regardless of the fact that the 2013 dollar limit on salary deferrals is $17,500. This is also true regardless of whether or not a participant may want to defer more than ten percent (10%) of compensation. This \"\"plan imposed\"\" limit on salary deferral contributions is permissible assuming it is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. This plan imposed limit is entirely separate from any other rules or restrictions on salary deferral amounts that might be as a result of things like the average deferral percentage test.\"" }, { "docid": "520116", "title": "", "text": "\"I have a mildly exceptional relationship with Social Security. When I was eight years old my father died, leaving nothing but a mountain of debt and an apartment full of trinkets. My mother received Social Security Survivor benefits checks in lieu of his child support payments, which kept me fed and clothed until I graduated high school. She also worked, sometimes multiple jobs, and did what she could to provide health and stability. I consider myself privileged even though we were often financially ... Disadvantaged. When I graduated high school and the checks from Social Security ended, I went on to college, financed a good portion of it, but also received a lot of scholarships and aid along the way. As I near 30, I still wear enough student debt equivalent of a new, mid-class sedan, but I am financially solvent, work a good job, and can afford my own rent, child support, actual child costs, and regular living expenses. While I can still ferret away some of my income into my 401(k), I still need to save for my child's education. I still need to save up for a home. I still have to save up for – and often spend for - a more immediate future. I do not anticipate Social Security being available to in any meaningful sense of the word, when I retire. But I \"\"already got mine\"\" in a sense, and I consider my SSI deductions to be contributions back into the system that kept me fed, kept me healthy, an kept me teachable. I preferred the notion that Social Security didn't become available until someone had exceeded their life expectancy. I preferred the notion that Social Security should never need to be used by anyone. I would much rather the safetynet never be depended upon. But the contributions were much appreciated all the same, and I can now appreciate how those contributions need to be a bit more randomized, more spread across the populace. I am pretty sure this is enough to have people shrieking a me that I'm done kind of socialist. All I know is that I miss that 4% from my paychecks (and I'll miss the full 6% when the \"\"holiday\"\" ends) but that it might help someone thrive, like it did me. My only regret is that the safety net is squandered on old people.\"" }, { "docid": "313923", "title": "", "text": "Pay the 401(k) loan back as soon as possible. To be clear, the money from your 401(k) loan is no longer invested and working for you. It doesn't make sense to pull money out of your 401(k) investments and then invest it in something else. If you want to invest for retirement, pay back the loan and invest that money inside your 401(k). If you leave your job, the 401(k) loan needs to be paid back in full, or else taxes and penalties will apply. If you have put the funds in an IRA, they won't be available to you should you need to pay back the loan early. Instead of making a monthly payment to the 401(k) loan, pay off the loan and then make a monthly investment to an IRA." }, { "docid": "406561", "title": "", "text": "\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"" }, { "docid": "571142", "title": "", "text": "Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated." }, { "docid": "591168", "title": "", "text": "\"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"" }, { "docid": "224434", "title": "", "text": "My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule." }, { "docid": "380615", "title": "", "text": "401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not." }, { "docid": "507892", "title": "", "text": "\"There's a bit of confusion here. Michael's article you linked is focused on the issue of post-tax 401(k) deposits. For those new to this, it sounds like we are talking about Roth 401(k) money. Not so. The Roth IRA was introduced in 1998, and the Roth 401(k) in 2006. Before '06, people had the ability to deposit more to their 401(k) than the pretax limit of $15,000 into the account as \"\"after tax\"\" deposits. My understanding is that these funds were analogous to the non-deducted IRA deposits for those outside the income limits. Michael goes on the point out that now, with the addition of Roth 401(k) and Roth IRAs, there are folk with pre and post Tax 401(k) funds and trying to crack them for transfer to Traditional IRA and Roth IRA may be problematic. Aside from a recent thread here, there are separate accounts for the Roth 401(k) and Traditional 401(k), and it's possible for the traditional to contain post tax money, which, given the recent introduction of the Roth 401(k) conversion, should be easily addressable.\"" }, { "docid": "425703", "title": "", "text": "I tried to roll my funds to my new company. But my hr department from my old job would not work with me on getting it straightened out. So I decided to either pull it all out or roll it into a 401 k and use it as a trial for stocks and investments. Simce it isn't a large amount of money to begin with" }, { "docid": "253552", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, the numbers you give are most probably nowhere near the total expenses you have/need to budget: Maybe you should have a look at the expenses you had over the last years (look at how much money came in and how much went to the savings and compare this expenses to the sum of all the expenses you have on your list of expenses as plausibility check. Just starting on some numbers you give and assuming the house is the main goal. House of 300 - 500 k€, assuming downpayment of 30 - 40 %, i.e. somewhere between 90 and 200 k€. I'll go on calculating with 150 k€ which would be 50 % of 300 k€ or 30 % of 500 k€. You want to be there in 8 - 15 a: this means saving 10 - 19 k€ per year. 19 k€/a is clearly impossible with 20 k€ net wage. 10 k€ with 20 k€ net wage means a savings quote of 50 %, so for each € you spend, one goes towards the house. This is doable in the sense that if you continue with 4 k€/a for rent plus a Harz 4 (= 400 €/month) style of life, that would put you to 9 k€ expenses/a, thus 1 k€ saving for unexpected disaster (I'd actually first get a couple of k€ together for such things, and then go as much as possible towards the house). Still, this is not the life style the rest of your goals sounds like. (You can update this somewhat with the expected income of your girlfriend/wife. But remember that she needs food and clothes as well and you assume she'll need a car of her own) Let me rephrase the savings goal of 150 k€: you'd try to save 3 times the median German household equity within 8 to 15 years. This should tell you that it is a very steep proposition. On the other hand, e.g. Slowakians manage to have a median household equity of ca 60 k€ out of a median income that is roughly half the median income in Germany. So again it is somehow possible, but it will be really tough to live a life style like a Slowakian or Harz 4ler between peers that spend roughly everything (good approximation as we're talking about savings rates above 50 % of net income) they earn. I think the \"\"easiest\"\" way to get your savings going is to postpone lifestyle upgrades. On the other hand, around Waldeck, 150 k€ would buy you a complete new house of the same size that costs 300 - 500 k€ around Darmstadt. So if you really want to go for the house, I'd recommend not only to save as hard as you can*, but also to look out for possibilities to relocate to a cheaper area. 8 - 15 years should be enough time to decide what area you'd like and then to look for an opportunity without too much pressure. And actually this should be enough time so that also your girlfriend/wife could get herself transferred to another Bundesland. * In reality saving as hard as possible will probably get you nowhere near 150 k€ (there are very few people who manage to do this - though they exist), but if you get to 75 k€ that would mean a reasonably good position for both starting negotiations with the bank about buying a 150 k€ house plus the corresponding payment of the mortgage. If you get there within less than 15 years that would also leave some air in case you change opinion with regard to kids and then leaves a reasonable amount of time to put together your pension. Consider your psychology about saving towards the house. Even if both of you know that you want it really hard, it may be good to enter a building savings contract (15 years should be reasonable for that way) which will enforce you to keep up the savings rate and also does not allow you to divert money for other purposes. However, I'd say that 6 months into the first job it may be a bit early to fix such savings rates. Maybe for the beginning a savings account that includes some hassle to get the money out again (set low limit and allow any outgoing money to go only to another account of yours) with an automatic savings deposit every month is a way how to safely determine the savings rate you can manage. Maybe you can use this to first put together your new emergency savings which should be first priority anyways. If you want to cut expenses in order to save, look at the recommendations for people who try to get out of debt: budget your expenses, cook yourself and enjoy this (maybe taking a cooking class together with your girlfriend is a lot of fun, leads to food that may even be more to your taste than restaurant stuff - and is much cheaper), keep book, pay in cash (not by card) and so on. If you're not a DIY person, try whether you could enjoy becoming one - no magic involved there. I guess the most important point is to find out how much you want the house and then how hard you are willing to save. This is something only you and your girlfriend can decide (together!). IMHO you really don't need to invest (unless you drop the house plan), you need to save towards your goals. You may decide to invest a small part of the money while saving in order to learn slowly how that works, but if the house goal is already kind of fixed in time, you don't want to find yourself in the situation that you have to get out of investments at a bad time in order to be able to buy the house. Even if you consider 15 years long enough to do some investing now and then get out some time during the next 15 years, you don't have any money to invest now. Later, the risk posed by the fixed point in time when you need the money is too large: Considering the rather steep saving propositions, the marginal costs of having less money are really large. This means you don't want to go for risky investments => plain old saving is what you need. Consider also that low house prices tend to come during economic crisis (people cannot pay mortgage and have to sell) so within the time window, you want to have your money for anticyclic buying if possible.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "10476", "title": "", "text": "As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old)." } ]

[ { "docid": "591168", "title": "", "text": "\"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"" }, { "docid": "97490", "title": "", "text": "The money that you have under your control (e.g. in bank accounts, savings accounts, taxable investments, etc) is your money and there is no tax of any kind (either in India or in US) that needs to be paid when the money is transferred to India. As Dheer's answer says, you need to transfer all these monies within 7 years as per Indian tax law. For your 401(k) account, assuming that all the money is tax-deferred (i.e. you contributed to a regular 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k)), you will have separated from service as far as US tax law is concerned. So, check if it is at all possible to roll over the money into a similar scheme in India, specifically the Employees Provident Fund. Wikipedia says The schemes covers both Indian and international workers (for countries with which bilateral agreements have been signed; 14 such social security agreements are active). and so a rollover might be possible. If not, you could withdraw small amounts each year and avoid US income tax (but not the 10% excise tax), but how long you can continue holding 401(k) assets after return to India and whether that is long enough to drain the 401(k) are things that you need to find out." }, { "docid": "4810", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no equation. Only data that would help you come to the decision that's right for you. Assuming the 401(k) is invested in a stock fund of one sort or another, the choice is nearly the same as if you had $5K cash to either invest or pay debt. Since stock returns are not fixed, but are a random distribution that somewhat resembles a bell curve, median about 10%, standard deviation about 14%. It's the age old question of \"\"getting a guaranteed X% (paying the debt) or a shot at 8-10% or so in the market.\"\" This come up frequently in the decision to pre-pay mortgages at 4-5% versus invest. Many people will take the guaranteed 4% return vs the risk that comes with the market. For your decision, the 401(k) loan, note that the loan is due if you separate from the company for whatever reason. This adds an additional layer of risk and another data point to the mix. For your exact numbers, the savings is barely $50. I'd probably not do it. If the cards were 18%, I'd lean toward the loan, but only if I knew I could raise the cash to pay it back to not default.\"" }, { "docid": "507892", "title": "", "text": "\"There's a bit of confusion here. Michael's article you linked is focused on the issue of post-tax 401(k) deposits. For those new to this, it sounds like we are talking about Roth 401(k) money. Not so. The Roth IRA was introduced in 1998, and the Roth 401(k) in 2006. Before '06, people had the ability to deposit more to their 401(k) than the pretax limit of $15,000 into the account as \"\"after tax\"\" deposits. My understanding is that these funds were analogous to the non-deducted IRA deposits for those outside the income limits. Michael goes on the point out that now, with the addition of Roth 401(k) and Roth IRAs, there are folk with pre and post Tax 401(k) funds and trying to crack them for transfer to Traditional IRA and Roth IRA may be problematic. Aside from a recent thread here, there are separate accounts for the Roth 401(k) and Traditional 401(k), and it's possible for the traditional to contain post tax money, which, given the recent introduction of the Roth 401(k) conversion, should be easily addressable.\"" }, { "docid": "4181", "title": "", "text": "\"As other responders said, you can certainly roll over multiple 401(k) into a single account. An added benefit of such rollover (besides the ease of tracking) is that you can shop around for your Rollover IRA provider and find the one that gives you the specific mutual funds that you want to invest in, the lowest expenses, etc. - in short, find the best fit to your priorities. There are also \"\"lemon\"\" 401(k) plans and if you are in one of them, get out! And rollover is the way out. There is also one possibility to keep an eye on as it happens rarely, but it does happen - rolling a 401(k) over into another 401(k). I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. At the same time I kept a Rollover IRA, combining the 401(k) from all other jobs; it had more investment options and provided some flexibility.\"" }, { "docid": "417388", "title": "", "text": "The 401(k) contribution is Federal tax free, when you make the contribution, and most likely State too. I believe that is true for California, specifically. There was a court case some years ago about people making 401(k) or IRA contributions in New York, avoiding the New York state income tax. Then they moved to Florida (no income tax), and took the money out. New York sued, saying they had to pay the New York income tax that had been deferred, but the court said no. So you should be able to avoid California state income tax, and then later if you were to move to, for example, Texas (no income tax), have no state income tax liability. At the Federal level, you will have different problems. You won't have the money; it will be held by the 401(k) trustee. When you try to access the money (cash the account out), you will have to pay the deferred taxes. Effectively, when you remove the money it becomes income in the year it is removed. You can take the money out at any time, but if you are less than 59 1/2 at the time that you take it, there is a 10% penalty. The agreement is that the Feds let you defer paying the tax because it is going to finance your retirement, and they will tax it later. If you take it out before 59 1/2, they figure you are not retired yet, and are breaking your part of the agreement. Of course you can generally leave the money in the 401(k) plan with your old employer and let it grow until you are 59.5, or roll it over into another 401(k) with a new employer (if they let you), or into an IRA. But if you have returned to your own country, having an account in the U.S. would introduce both investment risk and currency risk. If you are in another country when you want the money, the question would be where your U.S. residence would be. If you live in California, then go to, say France, your U.S. residence would still be California, and you would still owe California income tax. If you move from California to Texas and then to France, your U.S. residence would be Texas. This is pretty vague, as you might have heard in the Rahm Emanual case -- was he a resident of Chicago or Washington, D.C.? Same problem with Howard Hughes who was born in Texas, but then spent most his life in California, then to Nevada, then to Nicaragua, and the Bahamas. When he died Texas, California and Nevada all claimed him as a resident, for estate taxes. The important thing is to be able to make a reasonable case that you are a resident of where ever you want to be -- driver's license, mailing address, living quarters, and so on." }, { "docid": "168561", "title": "", "text": "On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above." }, { "docid": "421455", "title": "", "text": "\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"" }, { "docid": "489790", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\"" }, { "docid": "165981", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question has a built in faulty premise. \"\"ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely\"\" I'd ask if you were wise enough to beat the investments offered in your 401(k) after expenses, and with respect to the potential tax savings. Then, since I'm a proponent of \"\"deposit to the match, even if you have to eat rice and beans to find the cash to do\"\" I'll extend the question to ask if you can beat the choices taking the match into account. 401(k) - Your $1000 starts as $1500 and has a tax due on withdrawal years later. AeroAccount - You start with $750 (after the tax) and might spend a decade before hitting $1500. Start your own company? That might be another story. But to invest in the market and still beat the matched 401(k) takes a bit more wisdom than I'd claim to have.\"" }, { "docid": "525645", "title": "", "text": "HCE is defined as being above 120k$ or in the top 20 % of the company. The exact cutoff point might be different for each company. Typically, only the base salary is considered for that, but it's the company's (and 401(k)-plan's) decision. The IRS does not require HCE treatment; the IRS requires that 401(k) plans have a 'fair' distribution of usage between all employees. Very often, employees with lower income save (over-proportionally) less in their 401(k), and there is a line where the 401(k) plan is no longer acceptable to the IRS. HCE is a way for companies to ensure this forced balance; by limiting the amount of 401(k) savings for HCE, the companies ensure that the share of all contributions by below-HCE is appropriate. They will calculate/define the HCE cutoff point so that the required distribution is surely achieved. One of the consequences is that when you move over the HCE cutoff point, you can suddenly save a lot less in your 401(k). Nothing can be done about that. See this IRS page: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/definitions Highly Compensated Employee - An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received compensation from the business of more than $115,000 (if the preceding year is 2014; $120,000 if the preceding year is 2015 or 2016), and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation." }, { "docid": "422421", "title": "", "text": "First, read my answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing For me, the answer to your question comes down to how badly you want to get rid of your student loan debt. I recommend that you get rid of it as fast as possible, and that you sacrifice a little in your budget temporarily to make that happen. If that is what you want, here is what I would do. Following the steps in my other answer, I would pay off the student loans first. Cash out your non-retirement growth fund to jump start that, then challenge yourself to take as much of your paycheck as you can and throw it at the debt. Figure out how many months it will take before the debt is gone. Once the debt is gone, you won't have those monthly payments anymore and you won't be continually losing money in interest to the bank. At that point, you can build up your cash savings, invest in your employer's 401(k) plan for retirement, and start saving toward other long-term saving goals (car, house, etc.) To address some of your other concerns: If you cash out the non-retirement fund, you'll probably owe some capital gains tax. (Although, on a $3k investment, the long term rate won't add up to very much, depending on your tax bracket and cost basis.) You can't use the money from your non-retirement fund to invest in your 401(k). You can only contribute to your 401(k) via payroll deduction. To explicitly answer your question, your non-retirement fund is not bound by the limitations of retirement funds, meaning that you can cash it out and use it however you like without penalty, only paying perhaps a few hundred dollars of capital gains tax at tax time next year. Think of it as another source of cash for you." }, { "docid": "194776", "title": "", "text": "The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that." }, { "docid": "468841", "title": "", "text": "You should be able to take a loan out on the 401(k). You can't do a roll-over unless you leave your job. If your 401(k) is that bad, you should consider maxing out your IRA contributions first and putting the rest into your 401(k) - so if you're putting away about 7k a year, lower your withholding to 1500 and put 5500 into an IRA." }, { "docid": "272223", "title": "", "text": "\"The original question was aimed at early payment on a student loan at 6%. Let's look at some numbers. Note, the actual numbers were much lower, I've increased the debt to a level that's more typical, as well as more likely to keep the borrower worried, and \"\"up at night.\"\" On a $50K loan, we see 2 potential payoffs. A 6 year accelerated payoff which requires $273.54 extra per month, and the original payoff, with a payment of $555.10. Next, I show the 6 year balance on the original loan terms, $23,636.44 which we would need to exceed in the 401(k) to consider we made the right choice. The last section reflects the 401(k) balance with different rates of return. I purposely offer a wide range of returns. Even if we had another 'lost decade' averaging -1%/yr, the 401(k) balance is more than 50% higher than the current loan debt. At a more reasonable 6% average, it's double. (Note: The $273.54 deposit should really be adjusted, adding 33% if one is in the 25% bracket, or 17.6% if 15% bracket. That opens the can of worms at withdrawal. But let me add, I coerced my sister to deposit to the match, while married and a 25%er. Divorced, and disabled, her withdrawals are penalty free, and $10K is tax free due to STD deduction and exemption.) Note: The chart and text above have been edited at the request of a member comment. What about an 18% credit card? Glad you asked - The same $50K debt. It's tough to imagine a worse situation. You budgeted and can afford $901, because that's the number for a 10 year payoff. Your spouse says she can grab a extra shift and add $239/mo to the plan, because that' the number to get to a 6 year payoff. The balance after 6 years if we stick to the 10 year plan? $30,669.82. The 401(k) balances at varying rates of return again appear above. A bit less dramatic, as that 18% is tough, but even at a negative return the 401(k) is still ahead. You are welcome to run the numbers, adjust deposits for your tax rate and same for withdrawals. You'll see -1% is still about break-even. To be fair, there are a number of variables, debt owed, original time for loan to be paid, rate of loan, rate of return assumed on the 401(k), amount of potential extra payment, and the 2 tax rates, going in, coming out. Combine a horrific loan rate (the 18%) with a longer payback (15+ years) and you can contrive a scenario where, in fact, even the matched funds have trouble keeping up. I'm not judging, but I believe it's fair to say that if one can't find a budget that allows them to pay their 18% debt over a 10 year period, they need more help that we can offer here. I'm only offering the math that shows the power of the matched deposit. From a comment below, the one warning I'd offer is regarding vesting. The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster.\"" }, { "docid": "551545", "title": "", "text": "401(k)'s can be rolled over into IRAs. You can roll all of your former company 401(k)'s into a single IRA, managed by whatever company you like. Many employers will not let you transfer money out of your 401(k) while you're still a current employee, though, so you may be stuck with the 401(k) used by your current company until you leave. You'll have to check with your 401(k) administrator to be sure. You won't incur any taxes as long as you execute the rollovers properly. The best way to do it is to coordinate the transfer directly between your old 401(k) and your new IRA, so the check is never sent directly to you." }, { "docid": "313923", "title": "", "text": "Pay the 401(k) loan back as soon as possible. To be clear, the money from your 401(k) loan is no longer invested and working for you. It doesn't make sense to pull money out of your 401(k) investments and then invest it in something else. If you want to invest for retirement, pay back the loan and invest that money inside your 401(k). If you leave your job, the 401(k) loan needs to be paid back in full, or else taxes and penalties will apply. If you have put the funds in an IRA, they won't be available to you should you need to pay back the loan early. Instead of making a monthly payment to the 401(k) loan, pay off the loan and then make a monthly investment to an IRA." }, { "docid": "490867", "title": "", "text": "Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods." }, { "docid": "426215", "title": "", "text": "\"Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results - This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other. Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)? I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss. All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first. Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors. (To answer the question in advance - \"\"Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?\"\" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "478242", "title": "", "text": "At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty." } ]

[ { "docid": "19973", "title": "", "text": "\"Will it be more money for me now if I don't take it out? Yes Will it be more money for for my retirement if I do? Yes The difference will be the existence of a match and tax-deferral. If there is a match then you will have an instant 100% gain on the amount that is matched. From a tax standpoint, putting some in your 401(k) now will reduce your taxes this year - you will instead pay tax when you withdraw the money at retirement (the withdrawal will be considered \"\"income\"\" at that time). Other decision points: If there is no match, but you still want to add to retirement savings, then you could alternatively put the money in an IRA, which will give you more control over your investments than a 401(k) (which could be good or bad, depending on how investment savvy you are).\"" }, { "docid": "165981", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question has a built in faulty premise. \"\"ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely\"\" I'd ask if you were wise enough to beat the investments offered in your 401(k) after expenses, and with respect to the potential tax savings. Then, since I'm a proponent of \"\"deposit to the match, even if you have to eat rice and beans to find the cash to do\"\" I'll extend the question to ask if you can beat the choices taking the match into account. 401(k) - Your $1000 starts as $1500 and has a tax due on withdrawal years later. AeroAccount - You start with $750 (after the tax) and might spend a decade before hitting $1500. Start your own company? That might be another story. But to invest in the market and still beat the matched 401(k) takes a bit more wisdom than I'd claim to have.\"" }, { "docid": "417257", "title": "", "text": "You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do." }, { "docid": "127664", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employment status is not 100% clear from the question. Normally, consultants are sole-proprietors or LLC's and are paid with 1099's. They take care of their own taxes, often with schedule C, and they sometimes can but generally do not use \"\"employer\"\" company 401(k). If this is your situation, you can contact any provider you want and set up your own solo 401(k), which will have great investment options and no fees. I do this, through Fidelity. If you are paid with a W2, you are not a consultant. You are an employee and must use your employer's 401(k). Figure out what you are. If you are a consultant, open a solo 401(k) at the provider of your choice. Make sure beforehand that they allow incoming rollovers. Roll all of your previous 401(k)s and IRA's into it. When you have moved your 401(k) to a better provider, you won't be paying any extra fees, but you will not recoup any fees your original provider charged. I'm not sure why you mention a Roth IRA. If you try to roll your 401(k) into a Roth instead of a traditional IRA or 401(k), be aware that you will be taxed on everything you roll. ---- Edit: a little info about IRA's in response to your comment ---- Tax advantaged retirement accounts come in two flavors: one is managed by your company and the money is taken out of your paycheck. This is usually a 401(k) or 403(b). You can contribute up to $18K per year and your company can also contribute to it. The other flavor is an IRA. You can contribute $5,500 per year to this for you and $5,500 for your spouse. These are outside of your company and you make the deposits yourself. You choose your own provider, so competition has driven prices way down. You can have both a 401(k) and an IRA and contribute the max to both (though at high incomes you lose the ability to deduct IRA contributions). These accounts are tax advantaged because you only pay taxes once. With a regular brokerage account, you pay income tax in the year in which you earn money, then you pay tax every year on dividends and any capital gains that have been realized by selling. There are two types of tax-advantaged accounts: Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k). You do not pay income tax on this money in the year you earn it, nor do you pay capital gains tax. Instead you pay tax only in the year in which you take the money out (in retirement). Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). You do pay income tax on money on this money in the year in which you earn it. But then you don't pay tax on any gains or withdrawals ever again. When you leave your job (and sometimes at other times) you can move your money out of a 401(k) into your IRA, where you can do a better job managing it. You can also move money from your IRA into a 401(k) if your 401(k) provider will allow you to. Whether traditional or Roth is better depends on your tax rate now and your tax rate at retirement. However, if you choose to move money from a traditional account into a Roth account, you must pay tax on it in that year as if it was income because traditional and Roth accounts are taxed at different times. For that reason, if you are just trying to move money out of your 401(k) to save on fees, the logical place to put it is in a traditional IRA. Moving money from a traditional to a Roth may make sense, for example, if your tax rate is temporarily low this year, but that would be a separate decision from the one you are looking at. You can always roll your traditional IRA into a Roth later if that does become the case. Otherwise, there's no reason to think your traditional 401(k) should be rolled into a Roth IRA according to what you have described.\"" }, { "docid": "42537", "title": "", "text": "The simplest way to consolidate the funds your old 401(k) plans is by doing what's called a Direct Rollover (whereby the funds go directly into the new plan and skips you completely) from each of the old plans into either an IRA that you establish with a provider of your choice or even into your current employer's 401(k) plan if that is available. That way, the funds are in one central account and available to invest. Plus it eliminates the mandatory 20% withholding if the rollover is indirect and is sent to you first before the deposit into the new plan. It is important to bear in mind that you have 60 calendar days from the date of distribution to get the full amount into the new plan and a rollover is considered a tax reportable, but not necessarily a taxable event provided you deposit the funds within the time frame allotted." }, { "docid": "4810", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no equation. Only data that would help you come to the decision that's right for you. Assuming the 401(k) is invested in a stock fund of one sort or another, the choice is nearly the same as if you had $5K cash to either invest or pay debt. Since stock returns are not fixed, but are a random distribution that somewhat resembles a bell curve, median about 10%, standard deviation about 14%. It's the age old question of \"\"getting a guaranteed X% (paying the debt) or a shot at 8-10% or so in the market.\"\" This come up frequently in the decision to pre-pay mortgages at 4-5% versus invest. Many people will take the guaranteed 4% return vs the risk that comes with the market. For your decision, the 401(k) loan, note that the loan is due if you separate from the company for whatever reason. This adds an additional layer of risk and another data point to the mix. For your exact numbers, the savings is barely $50. I'd probably not do it. If the cards were 18%, I'd lean toward the loan, but only if I knew I could raise the cash to pay it back to not default.\"" }, { "docid": "371886", "title": "", "text": "The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices." }, { "docid": "168561", "title": "", "text": "On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above." }, { "docid": "426215", "title": "", "text": "\"Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results - This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other. Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)? I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss. All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first. Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors. (To answer the question in advance - \"\"Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?\"\" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)\"" }, { "docid": "421455", "title": "", "text": "\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"" }, { "docid": "406561", "title": "", "text": "\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"" }, { "docid": "468841", "title": "", "text": "You should be able to take a loan out on the 401(k). You can't do a roll-over unless you leave your job. If your 401(k) is that bad, you should consider maxing out your IRA contributions first and putting the rest into your 401(k) - so if you're putting away about 7k a year, lower your withholding to 1500 and put 5500 into an IRA." }, { "docid": "380615", "title": "", "text": "401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not." }, { "docid": "232262", "title": "", "text": "\"The responses here are excellent. I'd add just a couple points. Debt is not generic. It ranges from low (my HELOC is 2.5%) to insane (24% credit card, anyone?). When I read about the obsession to be completely debt free, I ask questions. Are you saving in your 401(k) at least up to the match? I disagree with the \"\"debt is evil\"\" people who advise to ignore retirement savings while paying off every last debt. My company offers a dollar for dollar match on the first 5% of income deposited. So a $60K earner will see a $3000 deposit doubled. 5 years of this, and he has 1/2 a year's income in his retirement account, more with positive returns. (note - for those so fearful of losses, all 401(k) accounts have to offer a fixed income, low risk choice. currently 1% or less, but the opposite of \"\"I can lose it all\"\".) After that, paying off the higher debt is great. When it's time to hack away at student debt and mortgage, I am concerned that if it's at the risk of having no savings, I'd hold off. Consider - Two people in homes worth $250K. One has a mortgage of $250K and $100K in the bank. The other has his mortgage paid down to $150K. When they lose their jobs, the guy with the $100K in the bank has the funds to float himself through a period of unemployment as well as a house the bank is less likely to foreclose on. The guy with no money is in deep trouble, and the bank can sell his house for $150K and run away (after proper foreclosure proceedings of course.) My mortgage is one bill, like any other, and only a bit more than my property tax. I don't lose sleep over it. It will be paid before I retire, and before my 11yr old is off to college. I don't think you stupid for paying your low interest debt at your own pace.\"" }, { "docid": "214248", "title": "", "text": "\"I live near historic Concord, Massachusetts, and frequently drive past Walden Pond. I'm reminded of Henry David Thoreau's words, \"\"Simplify, simplify, simplify.\"\" In my opinion, fewer is better. 2 checkbooks? I don't see how that makes budgeting any easier. The normal set of expenses are easily kept as one bucket, one account. The savings 2&3 accounts can also be combined and tracked if you really want to think of them as separate accounts. Now, when you talk about 'Retirement' that can be in tax-wise retirement accounts, e.g. 401(k), IRA, etc. or post tax regular brokerage accounts. In our situation, the Schwab non-retirement account was able to handle emergency (as money market funds) along with vacation/rainy day, etc, in CDs of different maturities. As an old person, I remember CDs at 10% or higher, so leaving money in lower interest accounts wasn't good. Cash would go to CDs at 1-5 year maturities to maximize interest, but keep money maturing every 6-9 months. Even with the goal of simplifying, my wife and I each have a 401(k), an IRA, and a Roth IRA, I also have an inherited Roth, and I manage my teen's Roth and brokerage accounts. That's 9 accounts right there. No way to reduce it. To wrap it up, I'd go back to the first 4 you listed, and use the #4 checking attached to the broker account to be the emergency fund. Now you're at 3. Any higher granularity can be done with a spreadsheet. Think of it this way - the day you see the house you love, will you not be so willing to give up that year's vacation?\"" }, { "docid": "31462", "title": "", "text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"" }, { "docid": "394549", "title": "", "text": "\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"" }, { "docid": "279570", "title": "", "text": "\"First, the limit this year is $16,500, $22,000 for age 50 or older. Next, does the company give you any match? If so, how much? Some will match your deposits dollar for dollar up to a certain percent of your pay. If you make $50k and deposit say 6%, that's $3k matched by company, for example. This deposit/match is the first priority. Next, you should understand the expenses in the account. A bad 401(k) with high cost quickly negates any tax deferral benefit. The 401(k) options also may be limited, what are the choices of investments? Is your income high enough that you can save $21,500? One thought is to save enough to drop back out of the 25% bracket, and go Roth after that. This is a good balance for most. By the way, Fairmark is a great site to see what bracket you are in. If your return is simple, you can just find your standard deduction and exemption numbers and get to your taxable income very simply. The debate of of Roth vs Pretax (for both IRA and 401(k) accounts) can get pretty complex, but I found the majority of earners falling into the \"\"live in the 15% bracket, tops\"\" range.\"" }, { "docid": "507892", "title": "", "text": "\"There's a bit of confusion here. Michael's article you linked is focused on the issue of post-tax 401(k) deposits. For those new to this, it sounds like we are talking about Roth 401(k) money. Not so. The Roth IRA was introduced in 1998, and the Roth 401(k) in 2006. Before '06, people had the ability to deposit more to their 401(k) than the pretax limit of $15,000 into the account as \"\"after tax\"\" deposits. My understanding is that these funds were analogous to the non-deducted IRA deposits for those outside the income limits. Michael goes on the point out that now, with the addition of Roth 401(k) and Roth IRAs, there are folk with pre and post Tax 401(k) funds and trying to crack them for transfer to Traditional IRA and Roth IRA may be problematic. Aside from a recent thread here, there are separate accounts for the Roth 401(k) and Traditional 401(k), and it's possible for the traditional to contain post tax money, which, given the recent introduction of the Roth 401(k) conversion, should be easily addressable.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "454610", "title": "", "text": "\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \"\"derivative\"\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "8950", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, never is too late to develop good habits. So, you know what you want to do and you are going about the how now... First, you should pay off any consumer debt except from mortgage which should be planned for. Prioritize your consumer debt (credit cards, consumer loans, etc) according to the interest rates, starting with the one with the highest interest and going to the one with the lowest one. Because you should make quite the investments to pay off this interest debt and still make a profit. Second, you should start saving some money. The 10% rule of thumb is a good one and for starters having aside the money you need to get by for at least 3 months is quite okay. As they say, cash is king. Now, that you actually realize the amount you can spare each month to start investing (assuming you had to do something of the aforementioned) it's time to see the risk you are comfortable taking. Different risk-taking views lead to different investing routes. So, assuming once again that you are risk averse (having a newborn baby and all) and that you want something more than just a savings account, you can start looking for things that don't require much attention (even more so if you are going on you own about it) such as low risk mutual funds, ETF (Exchange Traded Funds) and index funds to track indexes like FTSE and S&P500 (you could get an average annual return of 10-12%, just google \"\"top safe etfs\"\" for example and you could take a quick look at credible sites like forbes etc). Also, you can take a look at fixed income options such as government bonds. Last but not least, you can always get your pick at some value companies stocks (usually big companies that have proven track record, check warren buffet on this). You should look for stocks that pay dividends since you are in for the long run and not just to make a quick buck. I hope I helped a bit and as always be cautious about investing since they have some inherent risks. If you don't feel comfortable with making your own investment choices you should contact a specialist like a financial planner or advisor. No matter what the case may be on this, you should still educate yourself on this... just to get a grasp on this.\"" }, { "docid": "531180", "title": "", "text": "You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there." }, { "docid": "26939", "title": "", "text": "Don't start by investing in a few individual companies. This is risky. Want an example? I'm thinking of a big company, say $120 billion or so, a household name, and good consistent dividends to boot. They were doing fairly well, and were generally busy trying to convince people that they were looking to the future with new environmentally friendly technologies. Then... they went and spilled a bunch of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, it wasn't a pretty picture if BP was one of five companies in your portfolio that day. Things would look a lot better if they were one of 500 or 5000 companies, though. So. First, aim for diversification via mutual funds or ETFs. (I personally think you should probably start with the mutual funds: you avoid trading fees, for one thing. It's also easier to fit medium-sized dollar amounts into funds than into ETFs, even if you do get fee-free ETF trading. ETFs can get you better expense ratios, but the less money you have invested the less important that is.) Once you have a decent-sized portfolio - tens of thousands of dollars or so - then you can begin to consider holding stocks of individual companies. Take note of fees, including trading fees / commissions. If you buy $2000 worth of stock and pay a $20 commission you're already down 1%. If you're holding a mutual fund or ETF, look at the expense ratio. The annualized real return on the stock market is about 4%. (A real return is after adjusting for inflation.) If your fee is 1%, that's about a quarter of your earnings, which is huge. And while it's easy for a mutual fund to outperform the market by 1% from time to time, it's really really hard to do it consistently. Once you're looking at individual companies, you should do a lot of obnoxious boring stupid research and don't just buy the stock on the strength of its brand name. You'll be interested in a couple of metrics. The main one is probably the P/E ratio (price/earnings). If you take the inverse of this, you'll get the rate at which your investment is making you money (e.g. a P/E of 20 is 5%, a P/E of 10 is 10%). All else being equal, a lower P/E is a good thing: it means that you're buying the company's income really cheap. However, all else is seldom equal: if a stock is going for really cheap, it's usually because investors don't think that it's got much of a future. Earnings are not always consistent. There are a lot of other measures, like beta (correlation to the market overall: riskier volatile stocks have higher numbers), gross margins, price to unleveraged free cash flow, and stuff like that. Again, do the boring research, otherwise you're just playing games with your money." }, { "docid": "254230", "title": "", "text": "The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)" }, { "docid": "358997", "title": "", "text": "What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though." }, { "docid": "409995", "title": "", "text": "The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security. Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees." }, { "docid": "332924", "title": "", "text": "\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \"\"ETF Securities\"\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \"\"ETF Securities\"\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\"" }, { "docid": "400196", "title": "", "text": "Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require." }, { "docid": "44578", "title": "", "text": "\"I use TIAA-Cref for my 403(b) and Fidelity for my solo 401(k) and IRAs. I have previously used Vanguard and have also used other discount brokers for my IRA. All of these companies will charge you nothing for an IRA, so there's really no point in comparing cost in that respect. They are all the \"\"cheapest\"\" in this respect. Each one will allow you to purchase their mutual funds and those of their partners for free. They will charge you some kind of fee to invest in mutual funds of their competitors (like $35 or something). So the real question is this: which of these institutions offers the best mutual and index funds. While they are not the worst out there, you will find that TIAA-Cref are dominated by both Vanguard and Fidelity. The latter two offer far more and larger funds and their funds will always have lower expense ratios than their TIAA-Cref equivalent. If I could take my money out of TIAA-Cref and put it in Fidelity, I'd do so right now. BTW, you may or may not want to buy individual stocks or ETFs in your account. Vanguard will let you trade their ETFs for free, and they have lots. For other ETFs and stocks you will pay $7 or so (depends on your account size). Fidelity will give you free trades in the many iShares ETFs and charge you $5 for other trades. TIAA-Cref will not give you any free ETFs and will charge you $8 per trade. Each of these will give you investment advice for free, but that's about what it's worth as well. The quality of the advice will depend on who picks up the phone, not which institution you use. I would not make a decision based on this.\"" }, { "docid": "343594", "title": "", "text": "\"Remember that in most news outlets journalists do not get to pick the titles of their articles. That's up to the editor. So even though the article was primarily about ETFs, the reporter made the mistake of including some tangential references to mutual funds. The editor then saw that the article talked about ETFs and mutual funds and -- knowing even less about the subject matter than the reporter, but recognizing that more readers' eyeballs would be attracted to a headline about mutual funds than to a headline about ETFs -- went with the \"\"shocking\"\" headline about the former. In any case, as you already pointed out, ETFs need to know their value throughout the day, as do the investors in that ETF. Even momentary outages of price sources can be disastrous. Although mutual funds do not generally make transactions throughout the day, and fund investors are not typically interested in the fund's NAV more than once per day, the fund managers don't just sit around all day doing nothing and then press a couple buttons before the market closes. They do watch their NAV very closely during the day and think very carefully about which buttons to press at the end of the day. If their source of stock price data goes offline, then they're impacted almost as severely as -- if less visibly than -- an ETF. Asking Yahoo for prices seems straightforward, but (1) you get what you pay for, and (2) these fund companies are built on massive automated infrastructures that expect to receive their data from a certain source in a certain way at a certain time. (And they pay a lot of money in order to be able to expect that.) It would be quite difficult to just feed in manual data, although in the end I suspect some of these companies did just that. Either they fell back to a secondary data supplier, or they manually constructed datasets for their programs to consume.\"" }, { "docid": "29184", "title": "", "text": "\"Does the bolded sentence apply for ETFs and ETF companies? No, the value of an ETF is determined by an exchange and thus the value of the share is whatever the trading price is. Thus, the price of an ETF may go up or down just like other securities. Money market funds can be a bit different as the mutual fund company will typically step in to avoid \"\"Breaking the Buck\"\" that could happen as a failure for that kind of fund. To wit, must ETF companies invest a dollar in the ETF for every dollar that an investor deposited in this aforesaid ETF? No, because an ETF is traded as shares on the market, unless you are using the creation/redemption mechanism for the ETF, you are buying and selling shares like most retail investors I'd suspect. If you are using the creation/redemption system then there are baskets of other securities that are being swapped either for shares in the ETF or from shares in the ETF.\"" }, { "docid": "371176", "title": "", "text": "First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion." }, { "docid": "205280", "title": "", "text": "\"According to what little information is available currently, this fund is most akin to an actively managed exchange traded fund rather than an investment trust. An investment trust is an actively managed, closed-end fund that is tradeable on the stock market. \"\"Closed-end\"\" means that there are a fixed number of shares available for trading, so if you wish to buy or sell shares in a closed-end fund you need to find someone willing to sell or buy shares. \"\"Actively managed\"\" means that the assets are selected by the fund managers in the belief that they will perform well. This is in contrast to a \"\"passively managed\"\" fund which simply tracks an underlying index. The closed-end nature of investment trusts means that the share price is not well correlated to the value of the underlying assets. Indeed, almost all UK investment trusts trade at a significant discount to their net asset value. This reflects their historic poor performance and relatively weak liquidity. Of course there are some exceptions to this. Examples of open-end funds are unit trust (US = mutual funds) and ETFs (exchange traded funds). They are \"\"open-end\"\" funds in the sense that the number of shares/units available will change according to demand. Most importantly, the price of a share/unit will be strongly correlated to the net asset value of the underlying portfolio. In general, for an open-end fund, if the net asset value of the fund is X and there are Y shares/units outstanding, then the price of a share/unit will be X/Y. Historic data shows that passively managed funds (index trackers) \"\"always\"\" outperform actively managed funds in the long term. One of the big issues with actively managed funds is they have relatively high management fees. The Peoples Trust will be charging about 1% with a promise that this should come down over time. Compare this to a fee of 0.05% on a large, major market index tracking ETF. Further, the 1% headline fee being touted by Peoples Trust is a somewhat misleading, since they are paying their employees bonuses with shares in the fund. This will cause dilution of the net asset value per share and can be read as addition management fees by proxy. Since competent fund managers will demand high incomes, bonus shares could easily double the management fees, depending on the size of the fund. In summary, history has shown that the promises of active fund managers rarely (if ever) come to fruition. Personally, I would not consider this to be an attractive investment and would look more towards a passively managed major market index ETF with low management fees.\"" }, { "docid": "31581", "title": "", "text": "When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that." }, { "docid": "84800", "title": "", "text": "\"Your broker, Ameritrade, offers a variety of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that you can buy and sell with zero commission. An ETF is like a mutual fund, but you buy and sell shares the same way you buy and sell shares of stocks. From your point of view, the relevance of this is that you can buy and sell as many or as few shares as you like, even down to a single share. Note that to get the commission-free trades on the available ETFs you have to sign up for it in your account profile. Be sure to do that before you enter any buy orders. You'll want to start by looking at the Ameritrade's list of commission-free ETFs. Notice that they are divided into different categories: stocks, bonds, international, and commodities. Which categories you pick from will depend on your personal investing goals, time horizon, risk tolerance, and so on. There are lots of questions and answers on this site that talk about asset allocation. You should read them, as it is the most important decision you will make with your portfolio. The other thing you want to be aware of is the expense ratio for each fund. These expenses reduce the fund's return (they are included in the calculation of the net asset value of the shares), so lower is definitely better. Personally, I wouldn't even consider paying more than about 0.10% (commonly read \"\"10 basis points\"\" or \"\"10 bp\"\") for a broad-based domestic stock fund. For a sectoral fund you might put up with as much as 20 bp in expenses. Bond funds tend to be a little more expensive, so maybe allow as much as 25 bp, and likewise for international funds. I've never invested in commodity funds, so I'll let someone else opine on appropriate expense ratios for those. Once you've decided what funds you want (and have signed up for commission-free trades), all you have to do is enter the trade orders. The website where you manage your account has tutorials on how to do that. After that you should be all set. Good luck with your investing!\"" }, { "docid": "480315", "title": "", "text": "\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "539263", "title": "", "text": "There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund." }, { "docid": "200360", "title": "", "text": "\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"" }, { "docid": "364735", "title": "", "text": "I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads.." } ]

[ { "docid": "200360", "title": "", "text": "\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "343594", "title": "", "text": "\"Remember that in most news outlets journalists do not get to pick the titles of their articles. That's up to the editor. So even though the article was primarily about ETFs, the reporter made the mistake of including some tangential references to mutual funds. The editor then saw that the article talked about ETFs and mutual funds and -- knowing even less about the subject matter than the reporter, but recognizing that more readers' eyeballs would be attracted to a headline about mutual funds than to a headline about ETFs -- went with the \"\"shocking\"\" headline about the former. In any case, as you already pointed out, ETFs need to know their value throughout the day, as do the investors in that ETF. Even momentary outages of price sources can be disastrous. Although mutual funds do not generally make transactions throughout the day, and fund investors are not typically interested in the fund's NAV more than once per day, the fund managers don't just sit around all day doing nothing and then press a couple buttons before the market closes. They do watch their NAV very closely during the day and think very carefully about which buttons to press at the end of the day. If their source of stock price data goes offline, then they're impacted almost as severely as -- if less visibly than -- an ETF. Asking Yahoo for prices seems straightforward, but (1) you get what you pay for, and (2) these fund companies are built on massive automated infrastructures that expect to receive their data from a certain source in a certain way at a certain time. (And they pay a lot of money in order to be able to expect that.) It would be quite difficult to just feed in manual data, although in the end I suspect some of these companies did just that. Either they fell back to a secondary data supplier, or they manually constructed datasets for their programs to consume.\"" }, { "docid": "351088", "title": "", "text": "You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds." }, { "docid": "106863", "title": "", "text": "The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV" }, { "docid": "173967", "title": "", "text": "The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself. The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index. This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment. SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund. There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere." }, { "docid": "246253", "title": "", "text": "\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"" }, { "docid": "87261", "title": "", "text": "S & P Index Announcements would have notes on when there are changes to the index. For example in the S & P Small-cap 600 there is a change that takes affect on Feb. 19, 2013. As for how index funds handle changes to the fund, this depends a bit on the nature of the fund as open-end mutual funds would be different than exchange-traded funds. The open-end fund would have to sell and purchase to keep tracking the index which can be interesting to see how well this is handled to keep the transaction costs down while the ETFs will just unload the shares in the redemption units of the stock leaving the index while taking in new shares with creation units of the newly added stock to the index." }, { "docid": "312015", "title": "", "text": "I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative." }, { "docid": "9672", "title": "", "text": "\"You're talking about money in a savings account, and avoiding the risks posed by an ongoing crisis, and avoiding risk. If you are risk-averse, and likely to need your money in the short term, you should not put your money in the stock market, even in \"\"safe\"\" stocks like P&G/Coca-Cola/etc. Even these safe stocks are at risk of wild price swings in the short- to intermediate-term, especially in the event of international crises such as major European debt defaults and the like. These stocks are suitable for long-term growth objectives, but they are not as a replacement for a savings account. Coca-Cola lost a third of its value between 2007 and 2009. (It's recovered, and is currently doing better than ever.) P&G went from $74/share to $46/share. (It's partially recovered and back at $63). On the other hand, these stocks may indeed be suitable as long-term investments to protect you against local currency inflation. And yes, they even pay dividends. If you're after this investment, a good option is probably a sector-specific exchange-traded fund, such as a consumer-staples ETF. It will likely be more diversified and safer than anything you could come up with using a list of individual stocks. You can also investigate recommendations that show up when you search for a \"\"defensive ETF\"\". If you do not wish to buy the ETF directly, you can also look at listings of the ETF's holdings. Read the prospectus for an idea of the risks associated with these funds. You can buy these funds with any brokerage that gives you access to US stock exchanges.\"" }, { "docid": "8950", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, never is too late to develop good habits. So, you know what you want to do and you are going about the how now... First, you should pay off any consumer debt except from mortgage which should be planned for. Prioritize your consumer debt (credit cards, consumer loans, etc) according to the interest rates, starting with the one with the highest interest and going to the one with the lowest one. Because you should make quite the investments to pay off this interest debt and still make a profit. Second, you should start saving some money. The 10% rule of thumb is a good one and for starters having aside the money you need to get by for at least 3 months is quite okay. As they say, cash is king. Now, that you actually realize the amount you can spare each month to start investing (assuming you had to do something of the aforementioned) it's time to see the risk you are comfortable taking. Different risk-taking views lead to different investing routes. So, assuming once again that you are risk averse (having a newborn baby and all) and that you want something more than just a savings account, you can start looking for things that don't require much attention (even more so if you are going on you own about it) such as low risk mutual funds, ETF (Exchange Traded Funds) and index funds to track indexes like FTSE and S&P500 (you could get an average annual return of 10-12%, just google \"\"top safe etfs\"\" for example and you could take a quick look at credible sites like forbes etc). Also, you can take a look at fixed income options such as government bonds. Last but not least, you can always get your pick at some value companies stocks (usually big companies that have proven track record, check warren buffet on this). You should look for stocks that pay dividends since you are in for the long run and not just to make a quick buck. I hope I helped a bit and as always be cautious about investing since they have some inherent risks. If you don't feel comfortable with making your own investment choices you should contact a specialist like a financial planner or advisor. No matter what the case may be on this, you should still educate yourself on this... just to get a grasp on this.\"" }, { "docid": "406920", "title": "", "text": "Exchange-traded funds are bought and sold like stocks so you'd be able to place stop orders on them just like you could for individual stocks. For example, SPY would be the ticker for an S & P 500 ETF known as a SPDR. Open-end mutual funds don't have stop orders because of how the buying and selling is done which is on unknown prices and often in fractional shares. For example, the Vanguard 500 Index Investor shares(VFINX) would be an example of an S & P 500 tracker here." }, { "docid": "480315", "title": "", "text": "\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"" }, { "docid": "9116", "title": "", "text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark." }, { "docid": "142696", "title": "", "text": "Disclosure - I love Jack Bogle. Jack basically invented the index fund, and as a result, let the common investor have an opportunity to choose a long term return of (S&P-.05%) instead of losing nearly 2% that many funds in that day charged. The use of index investing has saved investors many billions of dollars. The 1% round trip, total cost to buy/sell, was common. Fees for trading have since dropped. I happen to use Schwab who charges $9 for a trade. On $100,000, this is not .5% ($500) but less than .01%. I think it's safe to say that billion dollar mutual funds are paying even less for trades that I do. I believe Jack's example here is a combination of old data and hyperbole. The cost is not so much for the trades, per se, but for the people managing the fund. An index fund has a manager of course, but it's pretty much run by a computer." }, { "docid": "45970", "title": "", "text": "\"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\"" }, { "docid": "341699", "title": "", "text": "If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price. Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%. So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%). As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate. If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem. As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive. If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction." }, { "docid": "536120", "title": "", "text": "Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company" }, { "docid": "531180", "title": "", "text": "You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there." }, { "docid": "388585", "title": "", "text": "I'd personally use a standard brokerage account and invest in a mix of mutual funds, ETFs and individual stocks. Follow the municipal bond markets and be prepared to move into muni funds or ETFs when opportunities present themselves. If you buy on weakness, you can pull some great returns with reasonably safe investment." }, { "docid": "135405", "title": "", "text": "In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund. Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc. Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them." } ]

[ { "docid": "511093", "title": "", "text": "Yes, it's completely normal to buy (and sell) puts and other options without holding the underlying. However, every (US) brokerage I know of only permits this within a margin account. I don't know why...probably a legal reason. You don't actually have to use the margin in a margin account. If you want to trade options, though, you will need a margin account." } ]

[ { "docid": "386762", "title": "", "text": "It's a matter of risk and reward. And its origin goes back to the Black Scholles equation, which is sort of a bell curve of possible outcomes. Do you see that from $36 to $34 strike, you are putting up over 35% more money to lower your break even by 30 cents? If I were to bet* $2000, I could buy 3 of the $34 contracts but almost 5 of the $36 strike. If the stock went to $45, I'd be far better off. *I say 'bet' because simply buying puts or calls, absent any underlying asset, is akin to gambling, not investing. I do it all the time, but with my Vegas money." }, { "docid": "542024", "title": "", "text": "Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent: If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people: In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them." }, { "docid": "5257", "title": "", "text": "The different levels are somewhat related to levels of risk. Writing a covered call is pretty low risk, in the sense that if I buy the stock but sell a call, I now have a lower cost for the stock, and however low the stock drops, I'm still slightly better off than the regular stock buyer. Covered call writing is often used to generate premium income from a stock portfolio, and less as a tool for speculation. Buying a call or put is simpler in execution, but the risk of losing the entire amount spent (I actually avoid the word invested here) due to leverage involved isn't just a possibility — it can be pretty likely depending on the strike price. Put writing and uncovered (naked) call writing can entail even higher risk relative to the premium received — consider extreme moves in the underlying to understand the potential losses involved. The more sophisticated trades are presumed to take a bit more experience and tolerance for risk and each broker has its own set of criteria to allow the client to trade at each level." }, { "docid": "93836", "title": "", "text": "\"Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF. The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market. Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying. ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs. Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading. They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs. In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF. Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this. Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year. Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees. Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect. If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them. In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling. The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose. At first brokers start charging additional fees. As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a \"\"locate,\"\" which takes time and costs money. Finally they will not allow you to short at all. Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers. There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying. This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty. In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices.\"" }, { "docid": "63565", "title": "", "text": "\"My original answer contained a fundamental error: it turns out that it is not true that any exchange can create its own product to track any underlying index. If the underlying index is copyrighted (such as the S&P indices, Russell indices, Dow Jones indices, etc.) then the exchange must enter into a licensing agreement (usually exclusive) with the copyright holder in order to use the index's formula (and name). Without such a license the exchange would only be able to approximate the underlying index, and I don't think that happens very much (because how would you market such a product?). The CME offers several futures (and other derivatives) whose face value is equivalent to some multiple of the S&P500's value on the date when the product expires. When such a product is actively traded, it may serve as a reasonable indicator of the \"\"market\"\"'s expectation of the S&P500's future value. So, you could pay attention to the front month of the CME's S&P 500 Mini future, which trades from 17:00-16:00 Chicago time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But remember that the prices quoted there are As another example, if you care about the Russell 2000 index, until 2017 the ICE Exchange happened to hold the license for its derivatives. They traded from 20:00-17:30 New York time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon. But in mid-2017 CME bought that license as well, so now you'll want to track it here. Moral: There's almost always some \"\"after hours\"\" product out there tracking whatever index you care about, but you may have to do some digging to find it, and it might not be all that useful for your specific purpose.\"" }, { "docid": "336541", "title": "", "text": "\"There is unlimited risk in taking a naked call option position. The only risk in taking a covered call position is that you will be required to sell your shares for less than the going market price. I don't entirely agree with the accepted answer given here. You would not lose the amount you paid to buy the shares. Naked Call Option Suppose take a naked call option position by selling a call option. Since there is no limit on how high the price of the underlying share can go, you can be forced to either buy back the option at a very high price, or, in the case that the option is exercised, you can be force. to buy the underlying shares at a very high price and then sell them to the option holder at a very low price. For example, suppose you sell an Apple call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50, and for this you receive a payment of $250. Now, if the price of Apple skyrockets to, say, $1000, then you would either have to buy back the option for about $90,000 = 100 x ($1000-$100), or, if the holder exercised the option, then you would need to buy 100 Apple shares at the market price of $1000 per share, costing you $100,000, and then sell them to the option holder at the strike price of $100 for $10,000 = 100 x $100. In either case, you would show a loss of $90,000 on the share transaction, which would be slightly offset by a $250 credit for the premium you received selling the call. There is no limit on the potential loss since there is no limit on how high the underlying share price can go. Covered Call Option Consider now the case of a covered call option. Since you hold the underlying shares, any loss you make on the option position would be \"\"covered\"\" by the profit you make on the underlying shares. Again, suppose you own 100 Apple shares and sell a call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50 to earn a payment of $250. If the price of Apple skyrockets to $1000, then there are again two possible scenarios. One, you buy back the option at a premium of about $900 costing you $90,000. In order to cover this cost you would then sell your 100 Apple shares at the market price of $1000 per share to realise $100,000 = 100 x $1000. On the other hand, if your option is exercised, then you would deliver your 100 Apple shares to the option holder at the contracted strike price of $100 per share, thus receiving just $10,000 = 100 x $100. The only \"\"loss\"\" is that you have had to sell your shares for much less than the market price.\"" }, { "docid": "526574", "title": "", "text": "Buying a put is hedging. You won't lose as much if the market goes down, but you'll still lose capital: lower value of your long positions. Buying an ultrashort like QID is safer than shorting a stock because you don't have the unlimited losses you could have when you short a stock. It is volatile. It's not a whole lot different than buying a put; it uses futures and swaps to give the opposing behavior to the underlying index. Some places indicate that the tax consequences could be severe. It is also a hedge if you don't sell your long positions. QID opposes the NASDAQ 100 which is tech-heavy so bear (!) that in mind. Selling your long positions gets you out of equities completely. You'll be responsible for taxes on capital gains. It gets your money off of the table, as opposed to playing side bets or buying insurance. (Sorry for the gambling analogy but that's a bit how I feel with stock indices now :) )." }, { "docid": "316866", "title": "", "text": "\"A straddle is an options strategy in which one \"\"buys\"\" or \"\"sells\"\" options of the same maturity (expiry date) that allow the \"\"buyer\"\" or \"\"seller\"\" to profit based on how much the price of the underlying security moves, regardless of the direction of price movement. IE: A long straddle would be: You buy a call and a put at the same strike price and the same expiration date. Your profit would be if the underlying asset(the stock) moves far enough down or up(higher then the premiums you paid for the put + call options) (In case, one waits till expiry) Profit = Expiry Level - Strike Price - (Premium Paid for Bought Options) Straddle\"" }, { "docid": "281533", "title": "", "text": "\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"" }, { "docid": "575662", "title": "", "text": "\"I can sell a PUT on it a bit out of the money, and I seemingly \"\"win\"\" either way: i.e. make money on selling the PUT, and either I get to pick up the stock cheaper if XYZ goes down, or the PUT expires worthless. In 2008, I see a bank stock (pick one) trading at $100. I buy that put from you, a $90 strike, and pay you $5 for the option. The bank blew up, and trades for a dollar. I then buy the $1 share and sell it to you for $90. You made $500 on the sale of the put, but lost $8900 when it went bad. You don't win either way, there is a chart you can construct (or a table) showing your profit or loss for every price of the underlying stock. When selling a put, you need to know what happens if the stock goes to zero since the odds of such an occurrence is non-trivial. A LEAP is already an option. With the new coding scheme for options, I'm not sure there's really any distinction between a LEAP and standard option, the LEAP just starts with a long-till-expiration time. There are no options on LEAPS that I am aware of, as they are options already.\"" }, { "docid": "550410", "title": "", "text": "No, the expense ratio would be something you wouldn't be charged. If you bought shares of the ETF long, then the dividends are usually reduced by the expense ratio if you wanted to know where to find that charge in general. You would have to make up for any dividends the underlying stocks as part of general shorting since the idea is that once you buy to put back the shares, it has to appear as if they weren't missing in the first place. No, the authorized participant would handle changes to the underlying structure if needed." }, { "docid": "96828", "title": "", "text": "\"It's only a \"\"loss\"\" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns. But that's simply not true. An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing. That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything. Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index. By being a \"\"passive investor\"\" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in. If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes. For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders. If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable. Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing. So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't? What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it? Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent. If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&amp;P 500, *plus* Snap, then just do that. For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap. It's that simple. But don't make this out to be a story about how S&amp;P is anti-free markets or doing a disservice to investors. That's ridiculous. If most Americans are just going to blindly put their retirement savings into index funds without bothering to understand them (again, which is fine) then somebody needs to make sure the companies in said indexes are good companies. Historically, a company with zero corporate governance and entrenched management =/= a \"\"good company\"\". S&amp;P realized this and decided to set a good precedent for US equity markets rather than a very bad precedent. You wanna buy shares with no voting rights? Go for it. But that should be your decision, not a default inclusion in major indexes.\"" }, { "docid": "16767", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. That wasn't exactly my point. I'm all for helping people, and social security does help people, and I am very happy it helped you - I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that what you got from social security is not as good as what you would have got from a $500,000 - $1,000,000 term life insurance policy. For people in there 20s, in good health, that kind of policy should be $20-$40/month, which could easily be bought with the money we otherwise spend on social security. (Now... whether parents would actually be responsible enough to buy term life insurance and put money towards retirement if we didn't have social security is a WHOOOOOOOOOLE nother discussion.) That's all I'm saying - I'd rather buy term life and invest for my own retirement because me and my family will come out ahead of where social security will put us. I'm really not a financial wizard, and I have to believe that this type of plan would work well for everyone else, too." }, { "docid": "516790", "title": "", "text": "\"Figured it out. Vertical spreads significantly reduce the amount of \"\"buying power\"\" on the account needed vs. buying / selling pure calls / puts. So even though the transaction fees may more double in some instances, it may be worth it in order to operate with pricier underlying instruments. Spreads are also considered \"\"defined risk\"\" trades where both the profit and loss are capped per how the spreads are setup. This is compared to single calls / puts where either the upside or the downside can be unlimited. So for times when the expected move is not as pronounced, a spread may be a better fit depending on environment and other factors.\"" }, { "docid": "561123", "title": "", "text": "\"While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that \"\"regular\"\" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "525231", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"" }, { "docid": "213767", "title": "", "text": "\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \"\"Restricted stock\"\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \"\"The Negative Coupon Bond\"\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \"\"Incentive Stock Options\"\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\"" }, { "docid": "163670", "title": "", "text": "\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \"\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\"" }, { "docid": "108", "title": "", "text": "Futures contracts are a member of a larger class of financial assets called derivatives. Derivatives are called such because their payoffs depend on the price of other assets (financial or real). Other kinds of derivatives are call options, put options. Fixed income assets that mimic the behavior of derivatives are callable bonds, puttable bonds etc. A futures contract is a contract that specifies the following: Just like with any other contract, there are two parties involved. One party commits to delivering the underlying asset to the other party on expiration date in exchange for the futures price. The other party commits to paying the futures price in exchange for the asset. There is no price that any of the two parties pay upfront to engage in the contract. The language used is so that the agent committing to receiving the delivery of the underlying asset is said to have bought the contract. The agent that commits to make the delivery is said to have sold the contract. So answer your question, buying on June 1 a futures contract at the futures price of $100, with a maturity date on August 1 means you commit to paying $100 for the underlying asset on August 1. You don't have to pay anything upfront. Futures price is simply what the contract prescribes the underlying asset will exchange hands for." } ]

[ { "docid": "40447", "title": "", "text": "In the money puts and calls are subject to automatic execution at expiration. Each broker has its own rules and process for this. For example, I am long a put. The strike is $100. The stock trades at the close, that final friday for $90. I am out to lunch that day. Figuratively, of course. I wake up Saturday and am short 100 shares. I can only be short in a margin account. And similarly, if I own calls, I either need the full value of the stock (i.e. 100*strike price) or a margin account. I am going to repeat the key point. Each broker has its own process for auto execution. But, yes, you really don't want a deep in the money option to expire with no transaction. On the flip side, you don't want to wake up Monday to find they were bought out by Apple for $150." } ]

[ { "docid": "430672", "title": "", "text": "\"This is a comment, not an answer. -- but it needs saying and doesn't fit in the comment boxes. Owning is not always cheaper than renting. Houses don't always appreciate, and in the early years of a loan you're mostly paying interest. -- so that too is \"\"lost money \"\". The time to buy a house is when you are reasonably sure you aren't going to move in the next five years or so, you need something a rental can't give you, you have at least 20% to put down so you avoid the pmi rip-off, you've run a full budget including upkeep and insurance costs and are sure you can carry the house worst-case ... including if you're out of work for an extended time... (I've seen people lose a job and discover that they can't keep the house, and can't unload it quickly. Good route toward bankruptcy. Houses are not a liquid asset, and being \"\"house-rich, cash-poor\"\" is potentially dangerous. ) If you really hate apartments, remember that sometimes you can rent houses too, often at lower cost per square foot. Basically, don't be stampeded into buying. I rented for two decades before I bought. And by/while doing so I was able to put aside enough investments that I could have bought a half-million-dollar house for cash, and was able to change cities several times without the stress of having to sell and re-buy. I missed out on the insane housing bubble, but I also avoided being hit when that crashed.\"" }, { "docid": "557356", "title": "", "text": "\"There are two reasons why most options aren't exercised. The first is obvious, and the second, less so. The obvious: An option that's practically worthless doesn't get exercised. Options that reach expiry and remain unexercised are almost always worthless bets that simply didn't pay off. This includes calls with strikes above the current underlying price, and puts with strikes below it. A heck of a lot of options. If an option with value was somehow left to expire, it was probably a mistake, or else the transaction costs outweighed the value remaining; not quite worthless, but not \"\"worth it\"\" either. The less obvious: An option with value can be cancelled any time before expiration. A trader that buys an option may at some point show a gain sooner than anticipated, or a loss in excess of his tolerance. If a gain, he may want to sell before expiry to realize the gain sooner. Similarly, if a loss, he may want to take the loss sooner. In both cases, his capital is freed up and he can take another position. And — this is the key part — the other end matched up with that option sale is often a buyer that had created (written) exactly such an option contract in the first place – the option writer – and who is looking to get out of his position. Option writers are the traders responsible, in the first place, for creating options and increasing the \"\"open interest.\"\" Anybody with the right kind and level of options trading account can do this. A trader that writes an option does so by instructing his broker to \"\"sell to open\"\" a new instance of the option. The trader then has a short position (negative quantity) in that option, and all the while may be subject to the obligations that match the option's exercise rights. The only way for the option writer to get out of that short position and its obligations are these: Not by choice: To get assigned. That is to say: a buyer exercised the option. The writer has to fulfill his obligation by delivering the underlying (if a call) to the option holder, or buying the underlying (if a put) from the option holder. Not by choice: The option expires worthless. This is the ideal scenario for a writer because 100% of the premium received (less transaction costs) is profit. By choice: The writer is free to buy back exactly the same kind of option before expiry using a \"\"buy to close\"\" order with their broker. Once the option has been purchased with a \"\"buy to close\"\", it eliminates the short position and obligation. The option is cancelled. The open interest declines. Options thus cancelled just don't live long enough to either expire or be exercised.\"" }, { "docid": "71424", "title": "", "text": "Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers. Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?). This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance. My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently. There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord. Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release." }, { "docid": "411888", "title": "", "text": "\"**Modern portfolio theory** Modern portfolio theory (MPT), or mean-variance analysis, is a mathematical framework for assembling a portfolio of assets such that the expected return is maximized for a given level of risk, defined as variance. Its key insight is that an asset's risk and return should not be assessed by itself, but by how it contributes to a portfolio's overall risk and return. Economist Harry Markowitz introduced MPT in a 1952 essay, for which he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in economics. *** **Option (finance)** In finance, an option is a contract which gives the buyer (the owner or holder of the option) the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset or instrument at a specific strike price on a specified date, depending on the form of the option. The strike price may be set by reference to the spot price (market price) of the underlying security or commodity on the day an option is taken out, or it may be fixed at a discount in a premium. The seller has the corresponding obligation to fulfill the transaction—to sell or buy—if the buyer (owner) \"\"exercises\"\" the option. An option that conveys to the owner the right to buy at a specific price is referred to as a call; an option that conveys the right of the owner to sell at a specific price is referred to as a put. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27\"" }, { "docid": "224069", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to interpret \"\"security\"\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\"" }, { "docid": "71230", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming that the ETF is tracking an index, is there a reason for not looking at using details on the index? Typically the exact constituents of an index are proprietary, and companies will not publish them publicly without a license. S&P is the heavyweight in this area, and the exact details of the constituents at any one time are not listed anywhere. They do list the methodology, and announcements as to index changes, but not a full list of actual underlying constituents. Is there a easy way to automatically (ie. through an API or something, not through just reading a prospectus) get information about an ETF's underlying securities? I have looked for this information before, and based on my own searches, in a word: no. Index providers, and providers of APIs which provide index information, make money off of such services. The easiest way may be to navigate to each provider and download the CSV with the full list of holdings, if one exists. You can then drop this into your pipeline and write a program to pull the data from the CSV file. You could drop the entire CSV into Excel and use VBA to automagically pull the data into a usable format. For example, on the page for XIU.TO on the Blackrock site, after clicking the \"\"All Holdings\"\" tab there is a link to \"\"Download holdings\"\", which will provide you with a CSV. I am not sure if all providers look at this. Alternatively, you could write the ETF company themselves.\"" }, { "docid": "346389", "title": "", "text": "The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch. A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low." }, { "docid": "400983", "title": "", "text": "\"A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including \"\"intangibles\"\" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually.\"" }, { "docid": "21225", "title": "", "text": "\"Real estate is not a good investment. In fact, it's easy to make a case for it being the worst possible investment imaginable: Imagine over a cup or coffee or a glass of wine we get to talking about investments. Then maybe one of us, let’s say you, says: “Hey I’ve got an idea. We’re always talking about good investments. What if we came up with the worst possible investment we can construct? What might that look like?” Well, let’s see now (pulling out our lined yellow pad), let’s make a list. To be really terrible: -- Why Your House Is A Terrible Investment There are plenty of good reasons to own a home, but the key word there is \"\"home\"\". Owning housing as an investment property is a horrible idea, and anyone who does it, especially right now with as bubbly as the market is looking again, (or, better put, still, since the last bubble never did fully pop and clear out the underlying systemic instability,) is an idiot. And even after the current housing market bubble pops, it's likely to remain a bad idea for decades. We're never getting the early 2000s back, for basic supply-and-demand reasons: with the Baby Boom generation retiring, aging and dying off, they're not likely to do much more home-buying, and no generation after them is as big as they are, which means a glut of oversupply and weak demand for the entirety of the foreseeable future.\"" }, { "docid": "92616", "title": "", "text": "Here is a quick and dirty explanation of options. In a nutshell, you pay a certain amount to buy a contract that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell a stock at a predetermined price at some date in the future. They come in a few flavors: I'll give you $100 if you let me buy 10,000 shares of XYZ for $10 more per share than it is trading at today any time before August 10th. I'll give you $100 if you promise to buy 10,000 shares of XYZ from me for $10 less per share than it is trading at today if I ask before August 10th. There are also two main types based on the expiration behavior: There are lots of strategies that employ options, too many to go into. Two key uses are.. Leverage: Buying Call options can give you a much higher return on your investment than just investing in the actual stock. However, with much higher risk of losing all of your investment instead of just some of it when the stock drops. Hedging: If you already own the underlying stock, put options can be used to buy down risk of serious drops in a holding." }, { "docid": "279693", "title": "", "text": "There is (almost) always money involved somewhere, but it doesn't have to come from you. It can be investors, credit cards, or even seller-financing (I've done all 3). Examples: If you can find partners with the money to make the deals happen, then your job is to put the deal together. Find the properties, negotiate the price, even get the property under contract (all without any obligation or cost on your part... yes it absolutely can be done). Then your partners will fund the deal if it's good enough and their terms are met, etc. In some areas you can put a property on a credit card. If you find a house say for $25,000 that will rent for $300/month, and you can put it on a credit card (especially at zero percent for a year or something similar), then you can generate cashflow as a landlord without putting up any cash of your own on the purchase. Of course there are many risks associated with landlording and i could tell you horror stories... but we're not addressing that here. You can negotiate a sale with an owner who agrees to finance the entire purchase for you. I once purchased 3 properties at once this way from a seller who financed the entire sale, all closing costs, everything, this way. Of course they needed a lot of repair and such so I had to fund that another way, but at least the purchase itself cost me no money out of pocket. So these infomercials/courses are not inherently scams in the sense that what they are teaching is (usually... I'm sure there are exceptions) true. However they generally give you enough information to get into trouble, and not out. But that's what true learning is... it's getting into trouble and finding a way out that doesn't kill you. =) That's called experience, and you can't buy that for any price." }, { "docid": "16767", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. That wasn't exactly my point. I'm all for helping people, and social security does help people, and I am very happy it helped you - I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that what you got from social security is not as good as what you would have got from a $500,000 - $1,000,000 term life insurance policy. For people in there 20s, in good health, that kind of policy should be $20-$40/month, which could easily be bought with the money we otherwise spend on social security. (Now... whether parents would actually be responsible enough to buy term life insurance and put money towards retirement if we didn't have social security is a WHOOOOOOOOOLE nother discussion.) That's all I'm saying - I'd rather buy term life and invest for my own retirement because me and my family will come out ahead of where social security will put us. I'm really not a financial wizard, and I have to believe that this type of plan would work well for everyone else, too." }, { "docid": "591229", "title": "", "text": "I would make a change to the answer from olchauvin: If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the value of call options will go up. So if you still think that options prices will go up, then a sell-off in the stock may be a good point to buy more calls for cheaper. It would be your call at that point (no pun intended). Here is some theory which may help. An options trader in a bank would say that the value of a call option can go up for two reasons: The VIX index is a measure of the levels of implied volatility, so you could intuitively say that when you trade options you are taking a view on two components: the underlying stock, and the level of the VIX index. Importantly, as you get closer to the expiry date this second effect diminishes: big jumps up in the VIX will produce smaller increases in the value of the call option. Taking this point to its limit, at maturity the value of the call option is only dependent on the price of the underlying stock. An options trader would say that the vega of a call option decreases as it gets closer to expiry. A consequence of this is that if pure options traders are naturally less inclined to buy and hold to expiry (because otherwise they would really just be taking a view on the stock price rather than the stock price & the implied volatility surface). Trading options without thinking too much about implied volatities is of course a valid strategy -- maybe you just use them because you will automatically have a mechanism which limits losses on your positions. But I am just trying to give you an impression of the bigger picture." }, { "docid": "230646", "title": "", "text": "\"A Credit Default Swap (CDS) is a contract between two parties. A useful analogy is insurance (but by no means exact). I pay a quarterly premium in order to insure myself against another event. In this case, it might be that I own some IBM Bonds. I am happy to own those bonds, and like the \"\"coupon\"\" that they pay me. But I am a little worried about IBM going bankrupt. So I can find someone willing to sell me a CDS. So long as I keep up my \"\"premium\"\" payments, if IBM goes into default on their bonds, I get a payout. This analogy does break down at a couple of levels. Firstly there is no requirement that I have to own the IBM bond in the first place. I can in effect then \"\"take a view\"\" on IBM going into default by purchasing a CDS without owning the underlying asset. Also in the real insurance world, there are various capital requirements that the companies have to adhere to, while CDS market, being essentially unregulated has none. So to summarize, and while The Pedia has a pretty good article, they are good both to hedge your bet (i.e. protect your actual owned asset) or as a speculative tool to take a \"\"view\"\" on the likelihood of a company to go bankrupt.\"" }, { "docid": "318718", "title": "", "text": "Hi. Straddle: Buy a call and a put with an identical strike price. The strike is the price at which you can exercise the option. You pay a premium (cash) to buy the options. Typically you need a large amount of volatility in pricing movement in order to breakeven on the combined premium paid. Strangle: Purchasing a call and a put option with a non-identical strike price. Once again it is a volatility trading play. You need some type of price movement in the underlying security in order to break even or profit on the trade." }, { "docid": "526574", "title": "", "text": "Buying a put is hedging. You won't lose as much if the market goes down, but you'll still lose capital: lower value of your long positions. Buying an ultrashort like QID is safer than shorting a stock because you don't have the unlimited losses you could have when you short a stock. It is volatile. It's not a whole lot different than buying a put; it uses futures and swaps to give the opposing behavior to the underlying index. Some places indicate that the tax consequences could be severe. It is also a hedge if you don't sell your long positions. QID opposes the NASDAQ 100 which is tech-heavy so bear (!) that in mind. Selling your long positions gets you out of equities completely. You'll be responsible for taxes on capital gains. It gets your money off of the table, as opposed to playing side bets or buying insurance. (Sorry for the gambling analogy but that's a bit how I feel with stock indices now :) )." }, { "docid": "243797", "title": "", "text": "\"MD-Tech's answer is correct. Let me only point out that there are easier ways to invest in the DJIA index without having to buy individual stocks. You can buy a mutual fund or ETF that will track the index and your return will be almost identical to the performance of the underlying index. It's \"\"almost\"\" identical because the fund will take a small management fee, you will have to pay annual taxes on capital gains (if you hold the investment in a taxable account), and because the fund has to actually invest in the underlying stocks, there will be small differences due to rounding and timing of the fund's trades. You also ask: Assuming that I calculated those numbers correctly, is this gain approximately better, equal to, or worse than an average investment for that timespan? While people argue about the numbers, index funds tend to do better than average (depends on what you call \"\"average\"\", of course). They do better than most actively managed funds, too. And since they have low management fees, index funds are often considered to be an important part of a long-term investment portfolio because they require very little activity on your part other than buying and holding.\"" }, { "docid": "180362", "title": "", "text": "When you own stock in a company, you do literally own part of the business, even if it's a small portion. Anyone amassing over 50% of shares really does have a controlling interest. No, you can't trade a handful of AAPL shares back to Apple for an iPod, but you can sell the shares and then go buy an iPod with the proceeds. Stock prices change over time because the underlying companies are worth more or less and people are willing to pay more or less for those shares. There is no Ponzi scheme because each share you own can be bought or sold on the open market. Dividends come from the company profits, not from other investors. On the other hand, money only has value because everyone believes it has value. There's the real conspiracy." }, { "docid": "415705", "title": "", "text": "\"Firstly \"\"Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock.\"\" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be \"\"short VEGA\"\" or \"\"short volatility\"\". So one way to think about \"\"buying\"\" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is \"\"money\"\" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to \"\"warrants\"\" rather than \"\"options\"\", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer.\"" } ]